Ad Tone and Political Expression: Information Efficacy and the Election's Salience

Running Head: AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION 1

Ad Tone and Political Expression:

Information Efficacy and the Election’s Salience

David Lynn Painter, Ph.D.

Full Sail University

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012

Paper submitted to the 2014 Meetings of the Association of

Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication

2


Abstract

This investigation uses a three- (positive, negative, or

combination) by two- (surveillance vs. expression) experimental

design (n = 436) to parse the influence of ad tone and political

expression on information efficacy and the salience of the 2012

election. The findings indicate the greatest gains in information

efficacy and the elections’ salience occurred among those viewing

a combination of positive and negative ads who engaged in

political expression after viewing the ads.

3


Ad Tone and Political Expression in Campaign 2012:

Information Efficacy and the Election’s Salience

The ascendance of digital communications technologies and

social media platforms notwithstanding, televised political

advertising remains “the nuclear weapon” of American politics and

the largest item in presidential campaign budgets (Nichols &

McChesney, 2012, p. 11). In the 2012 election, the two major

party candidates spent approximately $1 billion on campaign spots

and surpassed all preexisting fundraising, spending, and ad buy

records (Mason & Tanfani, 2012; Montanaro, 2012). The tone of the

2012 campaign ads was also distinctly negative, with 82% of the

Obama (D) campaigns’ 562,2664 ads and 91% of the Romney (R)

campaigns’ 223,584 ads focused on attacking the opponent rather

than promoting the sponsoring candidate (Kantar Media/CMAG,

2012).

While close electoral contests may spur negative campaign

tactics (Lau & Pomper, 2004), other content and individual-level

characteristics may influence the effects of political

advertising (for summary, see Kaid, 2004). Traditionally,

scholars have distinguished between issue and image ads (Kaid &

4


Johnston, 2001; Thorson, Christ, & Cawood, 1991), and research

suggests campaign spots focused on issues are more effective than

those focused on candidate image characteristics, regardless of

tone (Cho, 2013; Claiborn, 2012; Kaid, Chanslor, & Hovind, 1992;

Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 1989; Kahn & Geer, 1994; Lau,

Sigelman, Heldman, & Babbit, 1999; Roddy & Garramone, 1988). A

wide variety of demographic, psychosocial, affective, and other

receiver characteristics that condition the effects of political

advertising on normative democratic goals such as civic

engagement have also been identified (Delli Carpinin, 2004; Kaid,

Fernandes, & Painter, 2011; Valentino, Traugott, Hutchings, 2002;

Krupnikov, 2012; West, 2014). The individual level of situational

involvement during ad exposure is of particular interest in this

study because of its influence on information processing and

electoral decision-making (Faber, Tims, & Schmitt, 1990, 1993;

Painter, 2013). Moreover, research on the mediating effects of

involvement suggests political advertising stimulates political

expression, which may increase situational involvement levels

when processing information (Cho, 2008).

5


The purpose of this investigation is to parse the influence

of ad tone and situational involvement on the effects of the two

major party presidential candidates’ 2012 campaign spots on two

individual-level variables significantly influencing civic

engagement. First, political information efficacy, or “one’s

level of confidence in his or her ability to participate (vote)”

in an informed manner, is positively related to young citizens’

rates of political participation (Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco,

2007, p. 1096). Second, the salience of the election, or one’s

sense of urgency about participating in politics, is also

positively related to young citizens’ political participation

(Delli Carpini, 2000; Gans, 2004). Therefore, this investigation

tests the differential effects of exposure to positive, negative,

or a combination of positive and negative campaign ads on

political information efficacy and the election’s salience

between young citizens with high situational involvement levels

(expression) and low situational involvement levels

(surveillance).

Political Information Efficacy

6


Scholars have studied political efficacy, or the feeling that

individual political action does have, or can have, an impact

upon the political process, since the 1950s. In the late 1970s,

however, political scientists divided this construct into (1)

external political efficacy, which refers to “beliefs about the

responsiveness of governmental authorities and institutions to

citizen demands;” and (2) internal political efficacy, which

refers to “beliefs about one's own competence to understand and

to participate effectively in politics” (Nieme, Craig, & Mattei,

1991, 1407-1408). Although closely linked to internal political

efficacy, political information efficacy is a construct used to

measure the effects of campaign information on one’s level of

“confidence in his or her own political knowledge and its

sufficiency to engage the political process (to vote)” (Kaid,

McKinney, & Tedesco, 2007, p. 1096). While it may be appropriate

to measure internal political efficacy at any stage in the

process of the polity, measuring political information efficacy

is largely appropriate only during election cycles. Thus, Kaid et

al. have conducted a series of televised political advertising

studies examining the positive effects of exposure to campaign

7


spots on political information efficacy during election cycles

(Kaid, Fernandes, & Painter, 2011; Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco,

2007; Kaid, Postelnicu, Landreville, Hyun, & LeGrange, 2007).

Salience of the Election: Public Agenda Building:

In addition to lower levels of political information

efficacy, young citizens also express less urgency about

participating in politics than other age groups due to their

relatively low perceptions of the election’s salience. Scholars

analyzing how the public develops its political agenda in the

1968 election proposed the agenda-setting hypothesis to explain

how the media may transfer issue salience to the public (McCombs

& Shaw, 1972). This seminal theory led scholars to ask, “Who sets

the media’s agenda?” and to examine the antecedents of media

agenda-setting, developing the construct of agenda-building

(Semetko, Blumler, Gurevitch & Weaver, 1991; Gilbert, Eyal,

McCombs, & Nicholas 1980; Turk, 1986). Research suggests that

campaign communications not only influence the media’s agenda,

but also may shape both media coverage and public opinion

(Kiousis, Mitrook, Wu, & Selzer, 2006; Kiousis & Strömbäck, 2010;

Schleuder, McCombs, & Wanta, 1991). When focused specifically on

8


televised political advertising, research also indicates campaign

spot ads significantly influence viewers’ perceptions of issue

salience and candidate characteristics (Ghorpade, 1986; Herrnson

& Patterson, 2000; West, 1993; Sulfaro, 2001).

Political Advertising Tone

Research on the content of televised presidential candidate

advertising indicates it has increasingly focused on issues (over

images) and become more opponent-negative and less candidate-

positive over the past several decades (Joslyn, 1980; Kaid, 2004;

Kern, 1989; West, 2014). Research on the effects of televised

advertising suggest exposure to campaign spots increases voters’

knowledge levels about the issues and candidates’ policy

positions (Atkin & Heald, 1976; Martinelli & Chaffee, 1995;

Hofstetter & Strand, 1983). Moreover, several studies suggest

voters may learn more issue information from television ads than

from the news or debates (Kern & Just, 1995; Just, Crigler, &

Wallach, 1990). In particular, negative advertisements and those

using emotional appeals have been linked with higher levels of

recall (Basil, Schooler, & Reeves, 1991; Johnson-Cartee &

Copeland, 1989; Lang, 1991; Newhagen & Reeves, 1991).

9


The evidence that negative ads have a deleterious effect on

the political system (i.e., depress turnout) is ambiguous. Some

research shows negative ads have no effect on political

participation (Garramone, Atkin, Pinkleton, & Cole, 1990); other

research suggests negative ads may increase turnout (Geer, 2006;

Goldstein & Freedman, 2002; Meirick & Nisbett, 2011), and still

other research indicates negative ads may reduce turnout by about

5% (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Ansolabehere, Iyengar, & Simon,

1999; Ansolabehere, Iyengar, Simon, & Valentino, 1994). When

analyzing the impact of negative advertising in a broader

context, however, research indicates attack ads stimulate

homogenous political expression (Cho, 2013), crystallize

candidate selection (Krupinov, 2012), and elicit anxiety, which

triggers more elaborate information processing (Brader, 2006;

Marcus, MacKuen, Wolak, & Keele, 2006; Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen,

2000).

Research on positive political advertisements indicates these

messages are also largely focused on issues rather than candidate

image traits (Geer, 1998; Kaid, 1999; Kaid & Johnston, 2001).

Additionally, research indicates positive ads exert significant

10


influences on viewers’ cognitions and attitudes (Cundy, 1986,

1990; Just, Crigler, &Wallach, 1990; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003; West,

1994). The results of survey research indicate positive issue

advertising is differentially more effective than negative

advertising in terms of viewers’ knowledge about the candidates’

distinct issue agendas (Claibourn, 2012). Moreover, positive

political ads stimulate heterogeneous political expression (Cho,

2012) and elicit feelings of hope and pride, which heighten

enthusiasm for preferred candidates (Brader, 2006).

Most voters are exposed to a wide variety of both positive

and negative campaign spots during presidential elections, but

there is no fully articulated rationale for this combination of

positive and negative ads exerting differentially greater

influence on individual-level civic engagement than solely

negative or solely positive ads. This study finds its place in

the literature by comparing the differential effects of ad tone

and political expression among those exposed to positive,

negative, or a combination of positive and negative ads. Although

no prior experimental research comparing the differential effects

of exposure to ads based on tone and political expression could

11


be located in the literature, previous research indicates the

combination of positive and negative campaign information exerts

significant influence on variables influencing normative

democratic outcomes such as increasing political participation

(Hyland, 1995).

When analyzing the purposes of presidential campaigns, Hart

(2004) argued they bring a sense of immediacy to electoral

decision-making and engage a dialectic process by sharpening the

differences among the candidate options. Positive ads serve a

vital function in this process by helping “demarcate the

difference in how opposing candidates rank goals and problems”

and providing voters with a set of expectations should the

candidate win the election (Claibourn, 2012, p. 65). Thus,

positive ads not only provide voters with a basis for judgment

based on issue priorities, but also with the information

necessary to hold incumbents accountable to those issue agendas

(p. 81).

While positive ads present viewers with the candidates’ issue

agendas and provide a basis for determining issue alignment and

level of positive candidate affect, negative ads crystallize

12


comparisons and elicit commitment in the candidate selection

stage of electoral decision-making process (Claibourn, 2012;

Krupinov, 2012). In this study, the inclusion of positive and

negative ads sponsored by both campaigns provides the most

robust, deliberative environment with the information needed to

form judgments, make comparisons, and select the preferred

candidate option. Thus, the first set of hypotheses predict main

effects of campaign ad tone:

H1: Those exposed to a combination of positive and negative

ads will report greater gains in political information

efficacy than will those exposed to solely positive or

negative ads.


ads will report greater gains in perceptions of the

election’s salience than will those exposed to solely

positive or negative ads.

Situational Involvement: Expression versus Surveillance

One of the earliest findings among media scholars was that

interpersonal communication exerted greater effects on cognitions

and attitudes than did exposure to mediated sources (Lazarsfeld,

13


Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; Klapper,

1960). Although the average American household has at least two

television sets, most viewing occurs on the biggest screen in the

home and among other people, not on smaller screens in isolated

settings (Herr, 2007). Since most television viewing occurs in a

social context, viewers may also be in the company of someone

commenting upon, asking for, or expecting a response to the

advertisement.

With the convergence and diffusion of digital communications

technologies, opportunities for this type of political expression

in response to campaign spots have expanded exponentially.

Indeed, both the Obama and Romney campaign posted all their

television ads on YouTube before embedding them in their websites

and social media profiles. Moreover, watching television while

also using a mobile device has become the normal viewing practice

among media multi-taskers, and especially younger Americans

(Carrier, et al., 2009; Friedman, 2013). Thus, political

advertising may not only stimulate political talk in face-to-face

settings, but it may also stimulate political information seeking

and messaging through online sources and networks (Shah et al.,

14


2007). Research investigating this indirect, mediating influence

of political advertising on civic engagement indicates both

online and offline political talk significantly mediate the

effects of campaign spots (Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005).

This political expression after exposure to political advertising

may act as a mediating variable by influencing individual

situational involvement levels when processing these campaign

spots (Shah et al., 2007).

This conceptualization of situational involvement is in line

with Pingree’s (2007) bi-directional communication model an

analysis of the ways in which messages affect their senders as

well as their receivers. According to this model, the expectation

of expression may be manipulated as an independent variable to

test its influence on cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral

variables. This model of message effects suggests those who

expect to express themselves will pay closer attention to and

process messages more elaborately than will those who do not

expect to express themselves. In this way, situational

involvement may trigger the mechanism underlying the elaboration

likelihood model so that those who expect to express themselves

15


are motivated and have the ability to become more highly involved

than would those who do not have such an expectation. Thus, based

on this bi-directional communication model, two distinct main

effects of situational involvement are expected:

H3: Those in the expression condition will report greater

gains in political information efficacy than will those in

the surveillance condition.

H4: Those in the expression condition will report greater

gains in perceptions of the election’s salience than will

those in the surveillance condition.

Finally, to determine which of the six conditions reported

the greatest effects, the expectations from the first two sets of

hypotheses were combined to predict two interaction effects:


ads in the expression condition will report the greatest

gains in political information efficacy.


ads in the expression condition will report the greatest

gains in perceptions of the election’s salience.

Method

16


Participants and Design

A three- (ad tone) by-two (involvement) pretest-posttest

experimental design was used to test the hypotheses. Participants

were 436 students from a large southeastern research institution

who completed the project between October 19 and October 29,

2012, during the “hot phase” of the general election campaign.

Although all participants in this study were undergraduates, the

results of meta-analysis indicate there are no significant

differences between student and non-student samples when

investigating the effects of televised political advertising

(Benoit, Leshner, & Chattopadhyay, 2007).

Procedure and Manipulation

Participants in all conditions completed a pretest

questionnaire that included measurements of political information

efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience. Upon

completion of the pretest questionnaire, participants received

video and written instructions specific to the low or the high

situational involvement (expression versus surveillance)

condition to which they were randomly assigned, and then they

were exposed to the stimuli. Qualtrics software randomized the

17


order of the stimuli ads in each condition and would not advance

until each embedded advertisement played in full, forcing

exposure to both the video instructions and the advertisements.

After exposure to the stimuli, low situational involvement

participants were directed to the posttest questionnaire that

included items reassessing political information efficacy and the

salience of the election.

During exposure to video and written directions,

participants in the high situational involvement condition were

instructed that they were required not only to view the ads, but

also to express themselves afterwards. Since participants were

viewing these ads online, they were instructed that Qualtrcs

software would verify that they had completed at least one

expressive activity after viewing the ads. These activities

included posting a comment on Facebook; “liking” a post or page on

Facebook; posting a political tweet on Twitter, forwarding

information or videos to another person; sending the candidate a

message or signing-up to receive campaign emails, texts, or

alerts on the campaign website. Participants in the high

interactivity condition were also instructed that they would be

18


required to enter an email address and a minimum one-sentence

comment about the information into the item on the posttest

questionnaire that forwarded the information to another person.

Participants were instructed that they could express anything

they wished in response to the ads; their comments could be

positive, negative, or neutral; but they must contain at least

five words and an email address of another person to whom their

comments and the videos of ads would be forwarded. After entering

their comments and an email address, high situational involvement

participants were then directed to the posttest questionnaire

reassessing political information efficacy and the salience of

the election.

Stimuli

A pretest with 100 undergraduates was used to rate the tone

of 22 of the most frequently aired candidate issue ads and the

three ads with the highest mean positive and negative ratings

from the Obama (D) and Romney (R) campaigns were used as stimuli

(Kantar Media/CMAG, 2013). Those in the solely positive ad

condition watched three candidate-positive issue ads from both

the Obama and Romney campaigns. Those in the solely negative

19


condition watched three opponent-negative issue ads sponsored by

the Obama and Romney campaigns. Those in the combination of

positive and negative ads condition watched a randomly selected

combination of ads used in the positive and negative conditions

with equal time devoted to tone and candidate sponsorship. All

three conditions watched six ads for 240 seconds.

Dependent Variable Measurement

Political Information Efficacy. Participants’ level of political

information efficacy was measured in both the pretest and

posttest questionnaires. As in previous studies (Kaid, McKinney,

& Tedesco, 2007; Tedesco, 2007), four items from the American

National Election Study (ANES, 2009) survey were used to

construct the political information efficacy index. These items

included: (a) I consider myself well qualified to participate in

politics, (b) I think I am better informed about politics and

government than most people, (c) I feel that I have a pretty good

understanding of the important political issues facing our

country today, and (d) If a friend asked me about Florida’s 2010

midterm elections, I feel I would have enough information to help

my friend figure out who to vote for. Participants rated their

20


level of agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert

scale. The Cronbach’s α score for the scale was 0.88 in the

pretest and 0.90 in the posttest.

Salience of the Election. In both the pretest and the posttest,

participants were asked to state how salient they perceived the

2012 presidential election using six items on a five-point Likert

scale from prior research (Zaichowsky, 1985). The items included:

the upcoming election has prominent value in society; the

upcoming election has significant value in society; the upcoming

election has important value in society; the upcoming election is

well known in society; the upcoming election has fundamental

value in society; and I am concerned about the upcoming election.

The Cronbach’s α for the scale was 0.93 in the pretest and 0.87

in the posttest.

Results

Participant Descriptives and Manipulation Check

The participants were 43% male and 57% female, with an

average age of 21 years. Forty-one percent of participants were

Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 22% Independents. Participants

were 64% White, 13% African American, 13% Hispanic, and 10%

21


another ethnicity. The participants were randomly assigned to one

of the six conditions and completed the project online. Overall,

34% of participants were randomly assigned to the positive ad

condition, 32% to the negative ad condition, and 34% to the

combination of negative and positive ads condition. Additionally,

52% of participants were randomly assigned to the low involvement

(surveillance) condition and 48% to the high involvement

(expression) condition. There were no significant differences in

demographic or political party affiliation variables among any of

the six conditions (p > .50).

The manipulation was successful because each of the 211

participants in the high involvement or expression condition

provided an email address and a minimum five-word response after

watching the ads. Alternately, the 225 participants in the low

involvement or surveillance condition had no expectation of

expression and were unable to express any response to the ads to

another person before completing the posttest questionnaire.

Main Effect of Ad Tone: Positive, Negative, and Combination

The first group of hypotheses investigated the main effect

of ad tone on participant’s levels of political information

22


efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience. First, to

verify exposure to all stimuli exerted significant influence on

viewers’ political information efficacy, participants’ pretest

and posttest scores were compared. The results of a paired-

samples t-test revealed participants’ posttest political

information efficacy levels (M = 13.65, SD = 3.95) were higher

than their pretest levels (M = 12.84, SD = 3.64), and this

difference was significant, t(435) = -6.53, p < .01. This

comparison was repeated to determine how exposure to the stimuli

affected participants’ perceptions of the salience of the

election. The results of a paired-samples t-test revealed

participants’ posttest perceptions of the election’s salience (M

= 37.52, SD = 5.47) were higher than their pretest perceptions

(M = 35.23, SD = 7.43), and this difference was also

significant, t(435) = -7.23, p < 0.01. Next, participants’

pretest political information efficacy scores were subtracted

from their posttest scores to create a PIE Gain variable. This

process was also executed across participants’ pretest and

posttest salience of the election scores to create a Salience

Gain variable. Once these variables were calculated, the main

23


effects of online information source on gains in political

information efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience

were investigated.

The first hypothesis predicted that exposure to the

combination of positive and negative ads would result in greater

gains in political information efficacy than would exposure to

solely positive or solely negative ads. As shown in the first row

of Table One, the results of an analysis of variance revealed a

significant main effect of ad tone, F(2, 435) = 19.94, p < .01.

Specifically, the results of a post hoc comparison using the

Tukey HSD test revealed gains in political information efficacy

among those exposed to the combination of positive and negative

ads (M = 1.76, SD = 3.60) were significantly greater than among

those exposed to positive ads (M = 0.19, SD = 1.89) or negative

ads (M = 0.53, SD = 1.62), but that the differences between

positive and negative ads were not significant, p > .4. Thus,

hypothesis one was strongly supported.

The second hypothesis predicted those exposed to the

combination of positive and negative ads would report greater

gains in the salience of the election than would those exposed to

24


solely positive or negative ads. As shown in the second row of

Table One, the results of an analysis of variance revealed a

significant main effect of information source on gains in the

election’s salience, F(2, 435) = 18.61, p < 0.01. Specifically,

the results of a post hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD test

revealed gains in the salience of the election among those

exposed to a combination of positive and negative ads (M = 4.85,

SD = 4.97) were significantly greater than among those exposed to

positive ads (M = 1.25, SD = 3.84) or negative ads (M = 0.75, SD

= 1.35), but the difference between positive and negative ads was

not significant, p > .7. Thus, hypothesis two was strongly

supported.

Main Effect of Involvement: Expression versus Surveillance

The second group of hypotheses investigated the main effect

of involvement on participants’ levels of political information

efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience. The third

hypothesis predicted those in the expression condition would

report greater gains in political information efficacy than would

those in the surveillance condition. As shown in the first row of

Table Two, the results of an analysis of variance revealed a

25


significant effect of involvement on political information

efficacy, F(1. 434) = 11.21, p < 0.01. Specifically, the gains in

political information efficacy among those in the expression

condition (M = 1.24, SD = 3.44) were significantly greater than

among those in the surveillance condition (M = 0.41, SD = 1.03).

Thus, hypothesis three was strongly supported.

The fourth hypothesis predicted those in the expression

condition would report greater gains in perceptions of the

election’s salience than would those in the surveillance

condition. As shown in the second row of Table 2, the results of

an analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of

involvement on the salience of the election, F(1. 434) = 25.24, p

< 0.01. Specifically, perceptions of the salience of the election

were significantly higher among those in the expression condition

(M = 3.81, SD = 7.81) than among those in the surveillance

condition (M = 0.78, SD = 2.27). Thus, hypothesis four was

strongly supported.

Interaction Effects

Finally, in an attempt to specify which of the six

conditions reported the greatest gains in political information

26


efficacy and perceptions of the salience of the election,

significant interaction effects between online information source

and situational involvement were predicted. Hypothesis Five

predicted those exposed to a combination of positive and negative

ads in the expression condition would report the greatest gains

in political information efficacy. The results of a factorial

ANOVA revealed the interaction between ad tone and situational

involvement was significant, F(2, 435) = 23.07, p < 0.01. As

shown in the first row of Table 3, an analysis of simple effects

revealed participants in the expression condition who were

exposed to a combination of positive and negative ads reported

the greatest gains in political information efficacy. Therefore,

these results provide strong support for Hypothesis Five.

Hypothesis Six investigated the interaction between ad tone

and involvement on participants’ perceptions of the salience of

the election. Specifically, those exposed to a combination of

positive and negative ads in the expression condition were

expected to report the greatest gains in perceptions of the

salience of the election. A factorial ANOVA revealed a

significant interaction between ad tone and involvement on

27


perceptions of the election’s salience, F(2, 435) = 25.11, p <

0.01. As shown in the second row of Table 3, an analysis of

simple effects revealed those in the expression condition exposed

to a combination of positive and negative ads reported the

greatest gains in salience of the election Thus, these results

provide strong support for Hypothesis Six.

Discussion

It is important to remember the act of voting requires

making two decisions: first, whether or not to participate, and

second, which candidates to support. The first decision is

critically important in normative democratic terms because young

citizens who fail to develop the habit of participating in

politics are much more likely to remain disengaged throughout

their lifetime than those who develop regular participatory

habits early in life (Putnam, 2000). Thus, analyzing how ad tone

and political expression or situational involvement, influence

young citizens’ information efficacy and perceptions of the

election’s salience may provide insights into ways campaigns may

invoke a sense of confidence and urgency about participating in

politics. Moreover, the mediating effects of expression may be

28


measured and compared across ad types, testing and specifying the

O-S-R-O-R and bi-directional communication models.

This investigation’s findings failed to support the notion

that negative ads have a deleterious effect on viewer’s political

information efficacy or perceptions of the elections’ salience.

Instead, a combination of positive and negative ads were found to

be a powerful tool for not only increasing younger voters’

confidence in their information levels, but also for persuading

them of the importance of their vote in particular, especially

among those who engage in political expression. Contrary to

contemporary campaign wisdom holding that negative ads work while

positive ads do not, the results of this study indicate negative

ads’ influence on normative democratic values are dependent on

the inclusion of some positive ads as well. In practical terms,

these findings suggest the use of both positive and negative ads

is critically important for political campaigns in their efforts

to connect with young voters, particularly for enhancing

information efficacy and election salience. While those with

higher levels of political information efficacy are more likely

to participate in politics than those with lower levels (Kenski &

29


Stroud, 2006), this effect may not translate into voter turnout

should individuals fail to perceive the importance of their

participation in the election. Stemming from a belief that

politics has personal relevance, this sense of urgency about

voting is a necessary component of motivating participation in

the political process (Franklin, 2001).

The findings that suggest political expression after

exposure to the advertising stimuli significantly influenced both

political information efficacy levels and perceptions of the

election’s salience extend research on the indirect and mediating

effects of political advertising. Put simply, this line of

research indicates campaign advertising, especially during close

races and in competitive markets, provides citizens with a robust

information environment and is positively related to citizens’

information-seeking and expressive behaviors (Cho, et al., 2009;

Shah, et al., 2007). Further, this research suggests engagement

in political expression may activate citizens’ elaboration on

political information, which improves their ability to apply that

information to decision making (Nekmat, 2012).

30


In this particular study, the positive effect of political

expression was significantly greater among those exposed to a

combination of positive and negative ads than among those exposed

to solely positive or solely negative ads. This result may be

partly explained due to the wider variety of information provided

in a combination of candidate-positive and opponent-negative ads

that present both pro and con arguments for each of the two major

party nominees. The ads used in this experiment were all issue-

based, regardless of ad tone, to control for the issue/image

dichotomy in ad content and to reflect the increasingly issue-

focus of televised political advertising. By presenting viewers

with both positive and negative information about the issue

positions of both candidates, and then compelling them to express

themselves, participants in this condition participated in a more

robust deliberative process that positively mediated the ads’

effects on their information efficacy levels and perceptions of

the election’s salience. Since these participants were not

exposed to a series of solely positive or solely negative ads,

the shifts in ad tone may also have heightened attention to the

information and activated more elaborative information

31


processing. Further, the information in the combination of

positive and negative ads presents a wider variety of viewpoints

that may enhance the deliberative nature of the experience and

make viewers’ feel more confident in their ability to cast an

informed vote and more urgency about participating, important

normative goals (Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). Indeed, previous

research indicated there was a significant, positive relationship

between ad exposure and political expression (Cho, et al., 2009;

Shah, et al., 2007), as well as between ad exposure and normative

democratic goals (Kaid, Fernandes, & Painter, 2011; Kaid,

McKinney, & Tedesco, 2007; Kaid et al., 2007). This

investigation, on the other hand, is one of the first

experimental studies to parse the influence of ad tone and to

analyze political expression as a mediating variable influencing

normative democratic values such as political information

efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience.

Although previous research indicated political expression

triggered reasoning processes that mediated the effects of

information from a variety of sources (Kim, 2006; Shah, Cho,

Eveland, & Kwak, 2005; Shah, et al, 2007), expression only

32


exerted significant, positive influences among those exposed to a

combination of positive and negative ads in this investigation.

Indeed, as shown in Figures One and Two, political expression did

not exert a significant, positive influence on efficacy or

saliency among those exposed to solely positive or solely

negative ads. Indeed, ad tone failed to exert significant

influence on information efficacy among those in the

surveillance, or low involvement condition.

Since these findings parse the conditions under which

expression mediates information effects after exposure to

political advertising, it has important implications for both the

bi-directional communication and O-S-R-O-R models. As with all

experimental inquiries, however, this investigation has important

limitations that must be noted. First, the participants and the

focus of this investigation were limited to individuals between

the ages of 18 and 24. Therefore, the conclusions may not

necessarily be generalized to other age segments of the

population, although metanalysis suggest the differences between

student and non-student samples are not significant (Benoit,

Leshner, & Chattopadhyay, 2007). Another potential limitation is

33


the manipulation of situational involvement by instructing

participants to expect to express themselves prior to exposure to

the stimulus, and then compelling expression after the exposure.

As with all experimental investigations, this process was

artificial, but it allowed for the parsing of ad tone,

situational involvement, and interaction effects in a manner that

tested theoretical propositions and specified the direction of

cause and effect.

34


Bibliography

American National Election Study. (2009). 2008-2009 Panel study

questionnaires. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from

http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/2008_2009panel/ane

s2008_2009

panel_qnaire.pdf

Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How attack ads

shrink and polarize the

electorate. New York, NY: Free Press.

Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1999). Replicating

experiments using aggregate and

survey data: The case of negative advertising and turnout.

American Political Science

Review, 93, 901–909.

Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994).

Does attack advertising

demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88,

829–838.

Atkin, C. K., Bowen, L., Nayman, O. B., & Sheinkopf, K. G. (1973). Quality versus quantity in

35


televised political ads. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 209–224.

Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 216–228.

Basil, M., Schooler, C., & Reeves, B. (1991). Positive and

negative political advertising:

Effectiveness of ads and perceptions of candidates. In F.

Biocca (Ed.), Television and

political advertising, Volume 1(pp. 245–262). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Benoit, W.L., Leshner, G.M., & Chattopdhyay, S. (2007). A meta-

analysis of political advertising. Human Communication, 10(4),

507-522.

Carrier, L.M., Cheever, N.A., Rosen, L.D., Benitez, S., & Chang,

J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking

choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of

Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 483-489.

Cho, J. (2008). Political ads and citizen communication.

Communication Research, 39(5), p. 423-451.

36


Cho, J., Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., McLeod, D.M., Scholl, R.M., & Gottlieb, M.R. (2009).

Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of

communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88.

Cho, J. (2013). Campaign tone, political affect, and

communicative engagement. Journal of

Communication, 63, 1130-1152.

Claibourn, M.P. (2012). Hearing campaign appeals: the

accountability implications of

presidential campaign tone. Political Communication, 29, 64-85.

Cundy, D. T. (1986). Political commercials and candidate image:

The effects can be substantial.

In L. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), New

perspectives on political

advertising (pp. 210–234). Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Cundy, D. T. (1990). Image formation, the low involvement voter,

and televised political

advertising. Political Communication and Persuasion, 7, 41–59.

37


Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information

environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349.

Delli Caprini, M.X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The

impact of communications

on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In In

L. L. Kaid, (Ed.), Handbook of

political communication research, (pp. 395-434). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Faber, R. J., Tims, A. R., & Schmitt, K. (1993). Negative

political advertising and voter intent: The role of

involvement and alternative information sources. Journal of

Advertising, 22(4), p. 67-76.

Freidman, W. (2013). TV still tops, but multiscreen viewing

commonplace. Media Daily News. Retrieved from

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/192091/tv-

still-tops-but-multiscreen-viewing-commonplace.html?

edition=55973#ixzz2JN3ajCQa

Gans, C. (2004). Low voter turnout and the decline of American civic participation. In M.

38


S. McKinney. L. L. Kaid, D. G. Bystrom, & D. B. Carlin (Eds.), Communicating

politics: Engaging the public in democratic life (pp. 80-85). New York: Peter Lang.

Garramone, G. M., Atkin, C. K., Pinkleton, B. E.,&Cole, R. T.

(1990). Effects of negative

political advertising on the political process. Journal of &

Electronic Media, 34, 299–

311.

Geer, J. G. (1998). Campaigns, party competition, and political

advertising. In J. G. Geer (Ed.),

Politicians and party politics (pp. 186–217). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Geer, J.G. (2006). In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in

Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ghorpade, S. (1986). Agenda setting: A test of advertising’s neglected function. Journal

of Advertising Research, 26, 23-27.

Gilbert, S., Eyal, C., McCombs, M., & Nicholas, D. (1980). The

state of the union address and

the press agenda. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 584-588.

39


Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and

voter turnout: new evidence for

a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 721-740.

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Hart, R. (2002). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton

University Press:

Princeton, NJ.

Hernson, P.S., & Patterson, K.D. (2000). Agenda setting and campaign

advertising in congressional elections. In J.A. Thurber, C. J. Nelson, & D. A. Dulio,

(Eds.), Crowded Airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections (pp. 96-112). Washington,

D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Herr, N. (2007). Television & health. Retrieved from

www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.htmlcd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Hofstetter, C. R., &Strand, P. J. (1983). Mass media and

political issue perceptions. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 345–358.

40


Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J., & Levine, J. (2000). The dynamic of

collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign

effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American

Political Science Review, 94, 641–651.

Hyland, J.L. (1995). Democratic theory: The philosophical foundations. New

York: Manchester University Press.

Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. (1989). Southern voters’

reaction to negative political ads

in 1986 election. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 888–893, 986.

Joslyn, R. A. (1980). The content of political spot ads. Journalism

Quarterly, 57, 92–98.

Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M.,

& West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a

presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Just, M., Crigler, A., &Wallach, L. (1990). Thirty seconds or

thirty minutes: What viewers learn

from spot advertisements and candidate debates. Journal of

Communication, 40, 120–

133.

41


Kahn, K.F., & Geer, J.G. (1994). Creating impressions: An

experimental investigation of

political advertising on television. Political Behavior, 16, 93-

116.

Kaid, L. L. (1999). Political advertising: A summary of research findings. In B. Newman (Ed.),

The handbook of political marketing (pp. 423–438). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaid, L. L. (1991). The effects of television broadcasts on

perceptions of political candidates in

The United States and France. In L. L. Kaid, J. Gerstl´e, &

K. Sanders (Eds.), Mediated

politics in two cultures: Presidential campaigning in the

United States and France (pp. 247–260). New York: Praeger.

Kaid, L. L. (2004). Political advertising. In Lynda Lee Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of Political

Communication (pp. 155-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kaid, L.L., Chanslor, M., & Hovind, M. (1992). The influence of

program and

commercial type on political advertising effectiveness.

Journal of Broadcasting

42


and Electronic Media, 36, 303-320.

Kaid, L. L., Fernandes, J., & Painter, D. (2011). Effects of political advertising in the

2008 presidential campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 55 (4), 437-456.

Kaid, L. L.,& Johnston, A. (2001). Videostyle in presidential campaigns.Westport, CT:

Praeger/Greenwood.

Kaid, L.L., McKinney, M.S., & Tedesco, J.C. (2007). Introduction:Political information

efficacy and young voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1093-1111.

Kaid, L.L., Postelnicu, M., Landreville, K., Yun, H.J., &

LeGrange, A.G. (2007). The effects of

political advertising on young voters’ cynicism and

efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1137-1151.

Kantar Media/CMAG. (2012, November 14). Mad money: TV ads in the

2012 presidential

campaign. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/

43


Kantar UK Insights (2012, December 20). US election advertising

war. Retrieved from

http://uk.kantar.com/tech/tv/why-mitt-romney-lost-the-

advertising-war-to-president-obama/

Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the

flow of mass communications. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.

Kern, M., & Just, M. (1995). The focus group method, political

advertising, campaign news, and

the construction of candidate images. Political Communication,

12, 127–145.

Kern, M. (1989). 30-second politics: Political advertising in

the eighties. New York: Praeger.

Kim, J.Y., Painter, D.L., & Miles, M.A. (2013). Campaign

agenda-building online: Emotions, evaluations, and

important perceptions. Journal of Information Technology &

Politics, 10(3), 326-340.

Kiousis, S., Mitrook, M., Wu, X., & Seltzer, T. (2006).

First- and second-level agenda-building and agenda-

setting effects: Exploring the linkages among candidate

news releases, media coverage, and public opinion

44


during the 2002 Florida gubernatorial election. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 18, 265–285.

Kiousis, S., & Strömbäck, J. (2010). The White House and

Public Relations: Examining the Linkages between

Presidential Communications and Public Opinion. Public

Relations Review, 36, 7-14.

Klapper, J. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 27, 515–527.

Krupnikov, Y. (2012). Negative advertising and voter choice: The

role of ads in candidate

selection. Political Communication, 29, 387-413.

Lang, A. (1991). Emotion, formal features, and memory for

televised political advertisements. In

F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising, Volume 1 (pp.

221–243). Hillsdale,

NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Lau, R. L., & Pomper, G.M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. Senate elections.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

45


Lau, R.L., Sigelman, L., Heidman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The

effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic

assessment. The American Political Science Review, 93, 851-

875.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B.R., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The

people's choice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Leshner, G., & Thorson, E. (2000). Overreporting voting: Campaign

media, public mood, and the vote. Political Communication, 17,

263-278.

Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in

social psychology. In

G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology

(3rd ed., pp.

137–229). New York: Random House.

Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new-voter learning via three channels of

political information. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 18–32.

McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function

of mass media. The Public

46


Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.

Meirick, P.C., & Nisbett, G.S. (2011). I approve this message:

Effects of sponsorship, ad tone,

and reactance in 2008 presidential advertising. Mass

Communication and Society, 14, 666-689.

Montanaro, D. (2012, November 1). Ad spending closes in on $1

billion. NBC News,

Retrieved from

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/01/14855780-ad-

spending-closes-in-on-1-billion?lite

Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1991). Emotion and memory

responses for negative political

advertising: A study of television commercials used in the

1988 presidential election. In

F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising, Volume 1 (pp.

197–220). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nichols, J., & McChesney, R.W. (2012, February 6). After

‘Citizens United’ – The attack of the super PACS. Nation.

Retrieved from

47


http://www.thenation.com/article/165733/after-citizens-

united-attack-super-pacs

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in

the1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-

1413.

Painter, D. L. (2013). Collateral damage: Involvement and the effects of negative super

pac advertising.American Behavioral Scientist, doi:

10.1177/0002764213506210

Painter, D.L., Fernandes, J., Mahone, J., & Al Nashmi, E.

(2014). Social network sites and

Interactivity: Differential expression effects in campaign

2012. In J.A. Hendricks, &

D. Schill (Eds.), Presidential Campaigning and Social Media. Oxford

University

Press: New York. Publication forthcoming.

Page, B. I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pan, Z., Shen, L., Paek, H., & Sun, Y. (2006). Mobilizing

political talk in a presidential campaign: An examination of

48


campaign effects in a deliberative framework. Communication

Research, 33, 315–345.

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981) Issue involvement as a

moderator of the effects of advertising content and context.

Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 20-24.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion:

Central and peripheral

routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pingree, R. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more

general model of message effects and implications for

deliberation. Communication Theory, 17, 439-461.

Roddy, B. L., & Garramone, G. M. (1988). Appeals and strategies

of negative political

advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32, 415–427.

Schleuder, J., McCombs, M., & Wanta, W. (1991). Inside the

agenda-setting process: How political advertising and

TV news prime viewers to think about issues and

candidates. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political

advertising 1: Psychological processes (pp. 263-310). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

49


Semetko, H., Blumler, J., Gurevitch, M. & Weaver, D. (1991). The

Formation of Campaign

Agendas: A Comparative Analysis of Party and Media Roles in Recent American

and

British Elections. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression

in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication

Research, 32, 531–565.

Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H., Lee,

N., Scholl, R.M., & McLeod, D.M. (2007). Campaign ads,

online messaging, and participation: Extending the

communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–

703.

Sulfaro, V. A. (2001). Political advertisements and decision-making shortcuts in the 2000

election. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 22, 80–99.

Surlin, S. H., & Gordon, T. F. (1976). Selective exposure and retention of political advertising.

Journal of Advertising, 5, 32–44.

Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (2003). Style and effects of the

50


Bush and Gore spots. In L. L. Kaid,

J. C.Tedesco, D. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The

millennium election:

Communication in the 2000 campaigns. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Turk, J.V. (1985). Information subsidies and influence. Public

Relations Review, 11(3), 1-14.

Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the

2000 presidential election:

Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 787–798.

West, D. M. (1993). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952–1992.

Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

West, D. (1994). Political advertising and news coverage in the

1992 California U.S. Senate campaigns. The Journal of Politics, 56,

1053–1075.

West, D. M. (2014). Air wars: Television advertising and social media in election

campaigns 1952-2012. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press/Sage.

51


Zaichowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement

construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341, 352.

Zhao, X., & Chaffee, S. M. (1995). Campaign advertisements versustelevision news as sources

of political issue information. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 41–65.

Table 1: Political Information Efficacy and Salience Gains by Ad TonePositive AdsN = 150

Negative AdsN = 145

Positive & Negative AdsN = 141

F - value df p

Information

Efficacy

0.19 0.53 1.76 19.94 2 0.0

0

Salience 1.25 0.74 4.85 18.61 2 0.0

0

Table 2: Political Information Efficacy and Salience Gains by Involvement LevelSurveillanceN = 225

ExpressionN = 211

F - value df p

Information

Efficacy

0.41 1.24 11.21 1 0.01

Salience 0.78 3.81 25.24 1 0.01

52


Table 3: Political information efficacy and salience Gains by ad tone and involvement Positive

AdsPositive and

NegativeAds

NegativeAds

Expression

Surveillance

Expression

Surveillance

Expression

Surveillance

PIE Change 0.03 0.44 3.48* 0.32 0.47 0.62SalienceChange 2.10 0.00 9.81* 0.98 0.11 1.06

*Interaction effect significant, p < .01

53

Ad Tone and Political Expression: Information Efficacy and the Election's Salience

Documents

Transcript of Ad Tone and Political Expression: Information Efficacy and the Election's Salience