On the Limits of Persuasion: Campaign Ads and the Structure of Voters’ Interpersonal Discussion Networks

Political candidates employ campaign advertising in an attempt to persuade, and there is mounting evidence that such efforts can be successful in influencing voters’ decisions at the polls. In this article we explore the limits of the persuasive power of campaign advertising and examine the ways in which voters’ interpersonal discussions shape their susceptibility to persuasion. Foundational works in the study of media effects argued that interpersonal discussions play an important role in the process of mass communications. That is, depending on the composition of the social environment, interpersonal discussions may serve to either reinforce messages received through the mass media or promote resistance to persuasion attempts. In spite of these early insights, little research has explicitly taken into account the combined influence of interpersonal discussion networks and mass-mediated messages on persuasion in the context of a presidential campaign. The present study, by contrast, employs detailed measures of campaign advertising, coupled with information on the nature and composition of voters’ social networks from the 2008–2009 American National Election Studies (ANES) panel study, to examine the moderating influence of citizens’ interpersonal discussions on the effects of televised political advertising. We find that those who are situated within more agreeable networks are more likely to strengthen their candidate preferences and, correspondingly, resist shifting their support to a different candidate when exposed to ads that are consonant with their initial vote choice. Contrary to our expectations, however, there is little evidence that dissonant advertising has any effect when encountered within a social environment studded with disagreement.

[1]  W. Crotty The Race to 270: The Electoral College and the Campaign Strategies of 2000 and 2004 (review) , 2009 .

[2]  D. Nimmo The Political Persuaders; The Techniques of Modern Election Campaigns , 1970 .

[3]  J. Vermeer The 2000 Presidential Election and the Foundations of Party Politics , 2005, Perspectives on Politics.

[4]  Gregory A. Huber,et al.  Disagreement and the Avoidance of Political Discussion: Aggregate Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits , 2012 .

[5]  D. Shaw,et al.  Beyond the Battlegrounds? Electoral College Strategies in the 2008 Presidential Election , 2009 .

[6]  A. Karch,et al.  Messages that Mobilize? Issue Publics and the Content of Campaign Advertising , 2008, The Journal of Politics.

[7]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices , 2002, American Political Science Review.

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

[9]  Ye Sun,et al.  Mobilizing Political Talk in a Presidential Campaign , 2006, Commun. Res..

[10]  Michael P. McDonald The Return of the Voter: Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election , 2009 .

[11]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign , 1954 .

[12]  Jeffery J. Mondak Media Exposure and Political Discussion in U.S. Elections , 1995, The Journal of Politics.

[13]  Arthur H. Miller,et al.  Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media , 1980 .

[14]  P. Beck,et al.  VOTERS' INTERMEDIATION ENVIRONMENTS IN THE 1988 PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST , 1991 .

[15]  Cindy D. Kam,et al.  Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis , 2007 .

[16]  Travis N. Ridout,et al.  Political Advertising and Persuasion in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections , 2010 .

[17]  Anand E. Sokhey,et al.  Disagreeing About Disagreement: How Conflict in Social Networks Affects Political Behavior , 2013 .

[18]  D. Shaw The Race to 270: The Electoral College and the Campaign Strategies of 2000 and 2004 , 2006 .

[19]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence , 2003 .

[20]  Michael J. Robinson The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Elections. By Patterson Thomas E. and McClure Robert D.. (New York: G. P. Putman's Sons, 1976. Pp. 218. $7.95.) , 1978, American Political Science Review.

[21]  S. McClurg Indirect Mobilization , 2004 .

[22]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks , 2005 .

[23]  Ada W. Finifter The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants , 1974 .

[24]  K. Newton May the weak force be with you: The power of the mass media in modern politics , 2006 .

[25]  Jaeho Cho,et al.  Media, Interpersonal Discussion, and Electoral Choice , 2005, Commun. Res..

[26]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse , 2006, The Journal of Politics.

[27]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  Anthony Moretti The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns , 2010 .

[29]  M. McCombs Agenda setting function of mass media , 1977 .

[30]  M. Mendelsohn The Media and Interpersonal Communications: The Priming of Issues, Leaders, and Party Identification , 1996, The Journal of Politics.

[31]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  6. Katz, E. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[32]  Ted Brader Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work , 2005 .

[33]  D. Rucinski The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[34]  Kevin Arceneaux,et al.  Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising , 2007 .

[35]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign , 1995 .

[36]  Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck,et al.  Mass Communication, Personal Communication and Vote Choice: The Filter Hypothesis of Media Influence in Comparative Perspective , 2003, British Journal of Political Science.

[37]  Travis N. Ridout,et al.  Does Political Advertising Persuade? , 2007 .

[38]  Michael M. Franz Campaign Advertising and American Democracy , 2007 .

[39]  Campaign Tone, Political Affect, and Communicative Engagement , 2013 .

[40]  Jaeho Cho,et al.  The Geography of Political Communication: Effects of Regional Variations in Campaign Advertising on Citizen Communication , 2011 .

[41]  Jaeho Cho,et al.  Political Ads and Citizen Communication , 2008, Commun. Res..

[42]  H. Boomgaarden,et al.  The Conditional Nature of Effects on Public Opinion , 2005 .

[43]  Jens Woelke,et al.  Personal Influence. The Part Played by the People in the Flow of Mass Communication , 2016 .

[44]  Cristian Vaccari,et al.  Social Networks, Political Discussion, and Voting in Italy: A Study of the 2006 Election , 2008 .

[45]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  COMMUNICATION THEORY Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Campaigns, Reflection, and Deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R Model of Communication Effects , 2022 .

[46]  S. Iyengar,et al.  News That Matters: Television and American Opinion , 1987 .

[47]  Wayne Wanta,et al.  Interpersonal Communication and the Agenda-Setting Process , 1992 .

[48]  Interpersonal Discussion as a Potential Barrier to Agenda-Setting , 1985 .

[49]  Jason Wittenberg,et al.  Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results , 2003 .