It's All in the Name: Source Cue Ambiguity and the Persuasive Appeal of Campaign Ads

Political Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 561-584

  Weber, Christopher ^a   Dunaway, Johanna ^a   Johnson, Tyler ^b  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Framing; Heuristics; Information shortcuts; Persuasion; Source credibility; Source cues

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865422406     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-011-9172-y     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
2. Alvarez, R. M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3. Andreoli, V., & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator and message position on attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59-70.
4. Arceneaux, K. (2010). The benefits of experimental methods for the study of campaign effects. Political Communication, 27(2), 199-215.
5. Arceneaux, K., & Kolodny, R. (2009). Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 755-770.
6. Aronson, E., Turner, J., & Carlsmith, M. (1963). Communicator credibility and communicator discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 31-36.
7. Boatright, R. G., Malbin, M. J., Rozell, M. J., Skinner, R. M., & Wilcox, C. (2003). BCRA's impact on interest groups and advocacy organizations. In M. J. Malbin (Ed.), Life after reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act meets politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
8. Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79, 1061-1078.
9. Brewer, P., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens' thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929-948.
10. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822.
11. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Political Science Review, 33(4), 912-940.
12. Druckman, J. (2001a). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
13. Druckman, J. (2001b). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
14. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
15. Fowler, E. F., & Ridout, T. N. (2010). Advertising trends in 2010. The Forum, 8(4), Article 4.
16. Franz, M. M. (2008). Choices and changes: Interest groups in the electoral process. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
17. French, J. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63, 181-194.
18. French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
19. Garramone, G. M. (1985). Effects of negative political advertising: The roles of sponsor and rebuttal. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 29, 147-159.
20. Gross, D. A., & Goidel, R. K. (2003). The states of campaign finance reform. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
21. Hartman, T., & Weber, C. (2009). Who said what? The effects of source cues in issue frames. Political Behavior, 31, 357-558.
22. Heaney, M. T. (2007). Identity crisis: How interest groups struggle to define themselves in Washington. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (pp. 279-300). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
23. Hogan, R. E. (2005). State campaign finance laws and interest group electioneering activities. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 887-906.
24. Hovland, C., & Mandell, W. (1957). Is there a 'law of primacy' in persuasion? In C. Hovland (Ed.), The order of presentation in persuasion (pp. 1-22). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
26. Jaccard, J. (2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
27. Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
28. Johnson, T., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 325-340.
29. Kaid, L. L. (1981). Political advertising. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.
30. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163-182.
31. Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
32. Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
33. Kuklinski, J., & Hurley, N. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of cue taking. The Journal of Politics, 56, 729-751.
34. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(October), 951-971.
35. Lavine, H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. (2000). On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: Toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Political Psychology, 21, 81-106.
36. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice; how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell.
37. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts vs. encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 63-76.
38. Magleby, D. B., & Tanner, J. W. (2004). Interest-group electioneering in the 2002 congressional elections. In D. B. Magleby & J. Q. Monson (Eds.), The last hurrah? Soft money and issue advocacy in the 2002 congressional elections. Washington, DC: Brookings.
39. Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new-voter learning via three channels of political information. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 18-32.
40. Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41. McGuire, W. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
42. Mondak, J. J. (1990). Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior, 12, 363-384.
43. Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15, 167-192.
44. Pfau, M., Park, D., Holbert, R. L., & Cho, J. (2001). The effects of party and PAC-sponsored issue advertising and the potential of inoculation to combat its impact on the democratic process. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2379-2397.
45. Salmon, C. T., Reid, L. N., Pokrywczynsk, J., & Willett, R. W. (1985). The effectiveness of advocacy advertising relative to news coverage. Communication Research, 12, 546-567.
46. Semiatin, R. J., & Rozell, M. J. (2005). Interest groups in congressional elections. In R. G. Shaiko, P. S. Herrnson, & C. Wilcox (Eds.), The interest group connection: Electioneering, lobbying, and policymaking in Washington (pp. 75-88). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
47. Shen, F., & Wu, H. D. (2002). Effects of soft-money issue advertisements on candidate evaluations and voting preference: An exploration. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 395-410.
48. Sobel, J. (1985). A theory of credibility. Review of Economic Studies, 52, 557-573.
49. Tomz, M., & Sniderman, P. (2004). Brand names and the organization of mass belief systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
50. Turner, J. (2007). The messenger overwhelming the message: Ideological cues and perceptions of bias in television news. Political Behavior, 29, 441-464.
51. Walster, E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of "over-heard" persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 65, 395-402.
52. West, D. M., & Loomis, B. A. (1999). The sound of money: How political interests get what they want. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
53. Worchel, S., Andreoli, V., & Eason, J. (1975). Is the medium the message: A study of the effects of media, communication, and message characteristics on attitude change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 157-172.
54. Zaller, J. R. (1989). Bringing converse back in: Modeling information flow in political campaigns. Political Analysis, 1, 181-234.
55. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56. Zhao, X., & Chaffee, S. (1995). Campaign advertisements versus television news as sources of political issue information. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 41-65.