Effects of Soft-Money Issue Advertisements on Candidate Evaluation and Voting Preference: An Exploration

This empirical study assessed the effects of negative issue advertisements sponsored by both political candidates and soft-money political organizations. An experiment was conducted to see how negative issue advertisements sponsored by different political entities affect people's assessment of the political candidates and voting decisions. Results provide strong support for the hypothesis that negative advertisements significantly lowered assessments of the target candidate and backfired against the sponsoring candidate. However, the backlash effects were minimal when negative advertisements were sponsored by soft-money political organizations. These results suggest that even in the absence of express advocacy to vote for or against political candidates, soft-money negative issue advertisements could produce the intended detrimental impact while avoiding boomerang effects.

[1]  B. Pinkleton.  The Effects of Negative Comparative Political Advertising on Candidate Evaluations and Advertising Evaluations: An Exploration , 1997 .

[2]  K. Goldstein,et al.  Measuring Media Exposure and the Effects of Negative Campaign Ads , 1999 .

[3]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate , 1995 .

[4]  Amy E. Jasperson,et al.  An Aggregate Examination of the Backlash Effect in Political Advertising: The Case of the 1996 U.S. Senate Race in Minnesota , 2002 .

[5]  Michael Burgoon,et al.  An Empirical Test of a Model of Resistance to Persuasion. , 1978 .

[6]  Sharyne. Merritt.  Negative Political Advertising: Some Empirical Findings , 1984 .

[7]  Richard R. Lau,et al.  The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment , 1999, American Political Science Review.

[8]  B. Pinkleton.  Effects of Print Comparative Political Advertising on Political Decision-Making and Participation , 1998 .

[9]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Generality of impression-formation processes for evaluative and nonevaluative judgments. , 1971 .

[10]  Eric Haley,et al.  Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers' Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising , 1996 .

[11]  Judith S. Trent,et al.  Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices , 1983 .

[12]  J. Cappella,et al.  Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good , 1997 .

[13]  Lynda Lee Kaid,et al.  Effects of the Television Spots on Images of Dole and Clinton , 1997 .

[14]  Gina M. Garramone,et al.  Reactions to Political Advertising: Clarifying Sponsor Effects , 1984 .

[15]  Gina M. Garramone,et al.  Appeals and strategies of negative political advertising , 1988 .

[16]  Ronald J. Faber,et al.  Negative Political Advertising and Voting Intent: The Role of Involvement and Alternative Information Sources , 1993 .

[17]  Ronald Paul Hill,et al.  An Exploration of Voter Responses to Political Advertisements , 1989 .

[18]  L. L. Kaid,et al.  “Masculine” vs. “feminine” strategies in political ADS: Implications for female candidates , 1987 .

[19]  Richard R. Lau,et al.  Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior , 1985 .

[20]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. , 1980 .

[21]  Gina M. Garramone.  Voter Responses to Negative Political Ads , 1984 .

[22]  Spencer F. Tinkham,et al.  The Sleeper Effect and Negative Political Advertising , 1999 .

[23]  David D. Perlmutter.  The manship school guide to political communication , 1999 .

[24]  Gina M. Garramone.  Effects of negative political advertising: The roles of sponsor and rebuttal , 1985 .

[25]  L. L. Kaid,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertisements. , 1987 .