NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS: VOTERS‘ ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR FAIRNESS AND EFFECTIVENESS

NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS: VOTERS' ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR

FAIRNESS A N D EFFECTIVENESS

Richard D. Dixon Roger C. Lowery

INTRODUCTION

This report concerns an exploratory investigation of negative political campaign advertisements. Items pertaining to negative political ads, along with other political and sociodemographic content, formed a questionnaire that was administered by telephone to adult North Carolinians ( N = 374) during one week in February, 1986. The two basic goals of th i s research were to discern the relevant dimensions of voters' attitudes toward negative political campgign advertisements and to disclose the personal characteristics, and political attitudes and behavior, that relate significantly to alternative views about such ads.

Negative political campaign advertisements certainly are not new in U.S. politics (Felknor, 1966). As a campaign tactic, however, such ads often are alleged to have come of age during the "broadcast era" of national, state, and local politics. The televised 1960 presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon is considered by many political and social scientists as the bellwether event that underscored the importance of this mass communications medium (Lang and Lana, 1968; MacNeil. 1968; Rubin, 1967; Wyckoff, 1968). Subsequent years have witnessed the expenditure of vast amounts of effort and money to comprehend and control t h e video exposure of political candidates to their elec- torates (Agranoff, 1972; Graber, 1980; Joslyn, 1984; Nimmo, 1970). Some analysts think that th i s relent- less upward spiral of both the dominance of t h e video

6 1

medium, and its voracious appet i te for campaign funds, have eclipsed political par ty dynamics as the cent ra l reali ty of contemporary U.S. politics (McGinniss, 1969; Schram, 1987).

The ascendancy of "broadcast politics" has included, along with increased use of t h e medium, a t t e m p t s by candidates and their s t a f f s to tailor campaign messages in ways perceived t o work best in this medium (Schwartz, 1973; Nimmo, 1974 h 1976; Nimmo and Combs, 1980 & 1983). One genre of campaign messages t h a t some candidates and their advisors consider e f fec t ive is t h e negative political campaign advertisement. These ads call a t tent ion t o things about opposing candidates t h a t are speculated t o genera te a negative react ion toward those candidates among potential voters (Nugent, 1987). Such a d s a r e presented in an e f f o r t to place opponents in a defensive posture and in a forum where opponents a r e denied t h e opportunity of rebut ta l - - certainly not in the same ads, and perhaps not well enough, o f t e n enough, or at all in response ads if their campaign cof fers a r e not adequate to funding this typically expensive commodity (Ehrenhalt, 1984).

I t has been argued t h a t both the incidence and the virulence of negative political campaign adver- t isements have increased in recent years , especially in r a c e s for state and national offices (Tucker and Heller, 1987). This occasionally has been at t r ibuted t o the rise of political act ion commit tees and of the "new religious right" - - sometimes under t h e same roof - - such organizations allegedly having convic- tions - a n d pockets d e e p enough to make use of negative ads (Ehrenhalt, 1985). Recently, the ' l iberal l e f t " also has been accused of using such ads against a n unsuccessful conservative nominee to the U.S. Su- preme Court , Robert Bork.

Despite frequent expressions of concern over the s t rength and direction of political influence

6 2

a t t r i b u t a b l e t o nega t ive pol i t ica l ads, only a f e w empir ica l s tud ie s have been published which focus d i r ec t ly upon t h e phenomenon. This discovery was a key mot iva t ion to e x a m i n e opinions abou t n e g a t i v e ads. A fu r the r i m p e t u s to in i t i a t e such r e s e a r c h w a s the f a c t t h a t t h e site f o r t h e survey descr ibed be low was Nor th Caro l ina , t h e state t h a t a rguably heads a n y l i s t of loca t ions exper ienc ing nega t ive pol i t ica l c a m - paign adver t i sements . The 1984 Nor th Caro l ina U.S. S e n a t e r a c e be tween t h e incumben t , Jesse Helms, and t h e cha l lenger , f o r m e r Governor J i m Hunt , w a s t h e mos t expensive U.S. S e n a t e e l ec t ion , per c a p i t a , m u c h of e a c h c o n t e s t a n t ' s money having been used to fund negat ive ads abou t t h e opposing cand ida te (Ghorpade , 1986; Snider , 1985; Watson, 1986). While t h e in- s t r u m e n t for t h e p re sen t s tudy was being d r a f t e d , o n e of t h e t w o c o n t e n d e r s in North Caro l ina ' s 1986 Republ ican U.S. S e n a t e pr imary r a c e , David Funderburk, began a heavy barrage of nega t ive TV a d s aga ins t his r ival , J a m e s Broyhill. Funderburk en- joyed the backing of Helms ' Nat ional Congressional Club , a f inancial powerhouse among pol i t ica l a c t i o n c o m mi ttees.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Empir ical l i t e r a t u r e . Although t h e r e is a sub- s t a n t i a l and d iverse bodyof l i t e r a t u r e on t h e r o l e of t h e mass media in A m e r i c a n pol i t ics ( Israel , 1983; Kaid, 1974; and Lowery , 1983) , mos t of t h e journa l a r t i c l e s devoted t o pol i t i ca l adver t i s ing in e l e c t i o n campaigns a r e found in broadcas t ing , communica t ions , journal ism, and marke t ing per iodicals (a f e w , r ep resen ta t ive e x a m p l e s are: Donohue, 1973-74; H o f s t e t t e r and Zukin, 1979; Kaid, 1976; McClure and Pa t t e r son , 1974; Rothschi ld and Ray, 1974; Swinyard and Coney, 1978). Re la t ive ly few a r t i c l e s on pol i t ica l campaign adver t i s ing have appea red in pol i t i ca l or soc ia l sc ience journa ls (Atk in , et. al., 1973-74; Atk in and Heald , 1976; G i lbe r t , 1986; Jacobson, 1975; Jos lyn , 1980; Krugman, 1965; Meadow and Sige lman,

63

1982; Simon and Stern, 1955). Regardless of source, what analysis there is of campaign advertising tends not to focus on negative ads, and what little analysis there is of negative campaign ads tends to be anecdotal or case study in nature. Only three short articles, published in journalism and marketing peri- odicals, offer empirical analyses of public perceptions of negative campaign ads.

Surlin and Gordon (1977) examined attitudes toward negative political advertising by interviewing random telephone samples of Atlanta and Philadelphia residents (combined N = 559) for one month prior to the 1972 presidential election. Five-point agree- disagree items were used to tap three dimensions of negative ads: 1) perceived ethical nature; 2) information value; and, 3) effectiveness in making the respondent more favorable toward the sponsor of the ad. Racial and SES differences were examined.

Surlin and Gordon's findings supported their hypotheses that lower-SES and black respondents are: 1) less likely to label negative political ads as unethical; 2) more likely to view them as informative; and, 3) less likely to rate them as ineffective in influencing their attitudes toward candidates. More generally, however, all racial and class subgroups tended to perceive negative political ads to be informative, yet unethical and ineffective in creating favorable attitudes toward their sponsors.

Garramone (1984) examined perceptions of negative political advertising by interviewing a random telephone sample of 367 mid-Michigan voters during the final week of the 1982 congressional campaign. The 274 respondents who recalled seeing a t least one negative TV ad during the campaign were asked to describe what the commercial they saw was saying. They then were asked how truthful they thought the ad was, whether it had changed their feelings toward its sponsor and its target candidate,

64

and i f they approved or disapproved of negative political advertising.

Garramone's respondents tended to: 1) perceive such ads to be lacking complete truthfulness; 2) disapprove of their use; 3) be negatively influenced toward their sponsors; but, 4) be influenced toward or against their targets in nearly equal proportion. Older voters were more likely to consider negative ads untruthful, disapprove of them, and be favorably influenced toward their targets. Highly educated voters were more likely to be negatively influenced toward their sponsors. However, voters favoring the candidacies of negative ad sponsors were inclined to consider such ads to be truthful and were influenced toward their sponsors and against their targets. Also, voters who were highly educated and highly involved in politics -- but undecided in their preference for the sponsor or target candidates--were : more likely to perceive negative ads to be truthful and to be influenced against their targets.

Merritt (1984) examined perceptions of negative political advertising by interviewing a random telephone sample of 314 California voters during the week prior to a highly-publicized, open-seat, s ate- asse m blydistric t , elect ion. Thirty-five percent (10 9 respondents) correctly recalled the content of a t east one campaign billboard paid for by one of the candidates. Thirty-six percent (1 13 respondents) correctly recalled the content of campaign television commercials paid for by the opposing candidate. Both subsets were asked open-ended questions about how the political ads made them "think or feel". Responses were grouped into four categories: negative toward target, negative toward sponsor, negative in general, and indifferent. Data were also collected on evaluations of each candidate and attributes of each that would make the respondent vote for or against h im.

65

These three empirical studies of negative political advertisements can be viewed in the context of a body of empirical research into the effects of negative information on the political attitudes and behavior of the American electorate. Representative works in this body of literature are those by Bloom and Price, 1975; Kernell, 1977; Lau, 1982 and 1985; and Mueller, 1973. The general finding of this line of research is that negative information tends to have more weight than equally extreme positive information in influencing the American public's political attitudes and behavior. In viewing the impli- cations of his own research for campaign strategy, Lau suggests the following:

Being well thought of is apparently not as important to a candidate as not being badly thought of. Having positive facts associated with one's name is not as important as not having negative facts associated wi th one's name. On the face of it, these results could be interpreted to suggest that candidates might profitably spend more time in their campaigns stressing their opponent's shortcomings than their own strengths (Lau, 1982, p. 373).

The one-third of Merritt's sample who correctly recalled the content .of the billboard or television political ads tended to be: 1) more negatively influenced toward the target i f already predisposed (by political party identification) toward the sponsor; 2) more negatively influenced toward the sponsor if already predisposed toward the target; and, 3) more negatively influenced toward both candidates if not already predisposed toward either. Partisanship also acted as a perceptual screen in selective perception of billboard ad content but not television ad content.

66

Merritt concluded that, because negative political ads seem to encourage "counterarguing and source der- ogation among party loyalists," the backlash from negative ads is especially dangerous for minority party candidates.

Non-empirical literature. One of the best recent books on the role of political consultants warns that, 'qnevitably, anyone who attempts to assess the effectiveness of modern campaign techniques is hum- bled by t h e scarcity of empirical evidence to support any hard and fast conclusions" (Sabato, 1981, p.16). Nevertheless, a survey of the non-empirical literature on campaign advertising does offer some suggestive, i f largely untested, observations and generalizations.

During the past f i f t y years, consensus has shifted concerning the impact of mass media on political behavior. In the 1930s, media practitioners as well as their academic critics espoused I!. . . overwrought ideas of the powers of political persuasion and propaganda" (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p.351). However, during the 1940s, the landmark communications research conducted by Bernard Be- relson, Paul Lazarsfeld, and their associates a t Columbia University had reached the much more modest conclusion that, 'I. . . some kinds of communications on some kinds of issues, brought to the attention of some kinds of people under some kinds of conditions, have some kinds of effects" (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p. 351). By the 1950s, with the rise of television advertising, political consultants and their critics were once again emphasizing the power of media advertising. Yet, t he major work of the 1970s, Thomas E. Patterson and Robert D. McClure's - The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in- National Politics, offered convincing evidence of the weaknesses of both paid and unpaid television messages in influencing voters in the 1972 presidential election.

67

Definition and characteristics of negative ads. The literature offers no stable consensus on the effectiveness of either political advertising in general or negative campaign ads in particular. However, there is general agreement on the definition and basic characteristics of negative ads. Such ads are campaign commercials used to attack opponents, distinguishing them from those ads used to develop the candidate's own name recognition, personal qualities, or issue positions (Sabato, 1981, p. 121) . They are often referred to as "attack" ads (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p. 343). Such ads are more likely to be used by challengers than by incumbents or candidates in open races (Sabato, 1981, p. 66; Goldenberg, 1984, p. 122). Incumbents are least likely to use attack ads because their opposing candidates are often handicapped by relatively low name recognition (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p.360).

Ethics of negative ads. There also is practically universal agreement that negative ads can be either fair or unfair. The operant typology of political tactics seems to be that outlined by Patrick Bucha- nan, Nixon's speechwriter, in testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee, in 1973. Buchanan suggested that beyond the mainstream of "practical" politics and harmless political pranks, there exists the ethicallydistinct domains of "hard-ball" politics and "dirty tricks" politics (Safire, 1978, pp. 289-90). Using a baseball metaphor, while "hard ball" negative ads are equivalent to the brush-back pitch - ag- gressive but fair play; "dirty tricks7' negative ads are like the bean-ball -- unsportsman-like and outside the rules of acceptable play (but still often used). As the highly-regarded political consultant Charles Guggen- heim put it, "Som'e negative advertising is con- structive; some is not, and the second kind has proliferated" (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p. 342).

Distinguishing fair from unfair negative ads is not always easy. The literature reveals general

68

agreement that sometimes, "There's a fine line between talking about your opponent's record and engaging in an unfair attack. . . 'I (Greenfield, 1980, p. 231). The distinction often is context-specific. As Doug Bailey noted, "The same commercial can be run by two different candidates and one would be seen as being fair and the other unfair" (Sabato, 1981, p. 166). For example, a trailing candidate may get away w i t h more abrasive ads among voters who sympathize wi th underdogs, while front-runners, especially incumbents, may be expected to exhibit more statesmanlike conduct.

Nonetheless, many negative ads leave little doubt as to their scurrilously unethical content or manner of presentation. As Senator John Danforth ( R , MO) noted, "Negative campaigning has always existed in the U.S. politics, [but] the advent of slick radio and television ads, hired political consultants, and overflowing political action committee war chests has blown it into dangerous proportions" (Tucker, 1987, p. 43). Tom Wicker of t h e N e w York Times described the 1986 elections as ' I . . .the nastiest, least relevant, most fraudulent campaigns. . ." in American history (Nugent, 1987, p. 47).

Content of unfair negative ads. Examples of unfair negative ads discussed in the literature usually emphasize one or more of the following characteristics. First, unfair negative ads often rely upon deceit and misrepresentation. For example, in the 1964 Texas U.S. Senate race, George Bush's campaign skillfully edited clips from the speeches of his opponent, Ralph Yarborough, and ran them in television spots that left the impression that Bush had gotten the better of Yarborough in a vigorous debate (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p. 332).

A second characteristic common to t h e content of many unfair negative ads is the personal attack based upon innuendo, rumor, or outright smear and

69

character assassination. For example, in the 1986 Maryland U.S. Senate race, Linda Chavez was widely criticized when she referred to her unmarried opponent, Barbara Mikulski, as a If. . .San Francisco-type liberal" and aired television spots attacking Mikulski for associating with anti-male feminists (Nugent,' 1987, p. 48). Unsubtle character attacks are more common at the state and congressional district level where voter interest and knowledge are usually more limited. Hence, the messages are often blunt, I!. . .lest the voter miss the point" (Sabato, 1981, p. 173). Wherever used, character assassination aims for two "spin-off" benefits. Smear ads 'I . . .are a form of gossip, and word-of-mouth publicity mul- tiplies the message. An additional by-product . . . is the free media play, decrying but repeating, an attack" (Nugent, 1987, p. 49).

A third characteristic common to the content of many unfair negative ads is the appeal to the baser emotions of fear and prejudice. Such ads are based upon the assumption expressed by Tony Schwartz, 'I. . . the best political commercials are similar to Rorschach patterns. They do not tell the viewer anything. They surface his feelings and provide a context for him to express those feelings" (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p. 133). Schwartz pro- duced the famous "Daisy girl" spot of the 1964 Johnson campaign that appealed to the viewer's fear of nuclear holocaust and, without providing a reasoned argument or evidence, managed to tie those fears to Goldwater without ever mentioning his name. A s a critic noted, the danger of such emotional ads is that, while 'I. . . there is always the chance that false information can be corrected; false impressions are next to impossible to eradicate" (Spero, 1980, p. 167).

Presentation Styles of Unfair Negative Ads. Besides the distinctive content of unfair negative ads, two ethically questionable styles of presentation are

70

often used. First, unfair negative ads often utilize other persons, rather than the sponsoring candidate, to attack the opposing candidate. This tactic is considered all the better if the roughest attacks can come from defectors from the opposing candidate's party. The logic is to allow the sponsoring candidate to maintain a clean image while tarring the opponent. "What you seek is the maximum exposure for your charges, with m i n i m u m exposure of yourself" (Greenfield, 1980, p. 230). Or, as Lau phrased it, "The trick is being fortunate enough to have many negative things known about your opponent without your having to bring those negative facts to light" (Lau, 1982, p. 373).

A second, procedural characteristic common to mar.y unfair negative ads is that they almost always c o x e late in the election campaign in order to deny the opponent time for an effective rebuttal. In this sense, they are the modern, electronic media equivalent of the old "Roorback" tactic that dates back to the 1844 presidential election. It was then that an abolitionist planted a forged report by a fictitious; Baron Roorback in the Ithaca (NY) Chronicle, claim- ing that James K. Polk had forty-three slaves wi th his initials branded on their shoulders (Greenfield, 1980, p. 219). The fictitious slander was widely reprinted in the last days of the campaign. Hence, "Roorback" came to mean "an outrageous lie told (usually 'at the last minute) to smear a political figure during a campaign" (Safire, 1978, p. 618). As Bailey argued, "Unanswered negative ads work . . . ' I largely because they are aimed a t the undecided or inattentive voters who do not make a voting decision un t i l the last minute" (Bailey, 1988, p. 50). And, being over- simplified, they are easier for such marginal voters to recall when in the voting booth (Nugent, 1987, p. 49).

Perhaps the most widely agreed upon characteristic of unfair negative ads is that voter-backlash can be very harmful to the electoral fortunes of the

7 1

candidate who uses them. For example, when t ransmit ted by mass media such as television or newspapers with large and heterogeneous audi- ences, ff. . . the cheap shot t h a t attracts ill-formed fence s i t t e r s . . . may repel previously solid voters" (Diamond and Bates, 1984, p. 380). Or, just as bad, they may shore up t h e wavering loyalt ies of voters who previously were only leaning toward the ta rge t of unfair negative ads. Furthermore, a t t a c k ads - can sometimes trigger a counter-attack t h a t is even more effective. In multi-candidate races - especially primaries -- over-use of negative ads by leading candidates c a n so disgust t h e voters t h a t a trailing candidate is propelled to victory. This apparently happened in the 1978 Maryland Democrat ic guber- natorial primary r a c e t h a t was won by Harry R. Hughes, who hardly used television or radio. Hughes defea ted Acting Governor Blair Lee and Baltimore County Executive Theodore Venetoulis, who bom- barded t h e e lec tora te with negative ads (Sabato, 1981, p. 169).

RESEARCH DESIGN

The survey t h a t provided d a t a for the present study was a collaborative e f f o r t with t h e UNC-Chapel Hill Department of Journalism. Since 1976, various faculty and s tudents of t h a t depar tment have been conducting t h e Carolina Poll, typically once each semes ter of t h e regular academic year. These surveys have addressed political and social topics of t imely interest , using telephone interviews with ran- domized samples of adult North Carolinians.

The authors and their UNC-Wilmington students were invited to join t h e UNC-Chapel Hill Department of Journalism in conducting t h e Spring, 1986, Carolina - Poll, by pooling d a t a gathered from interviews concerning some common topical content. Specifically,

7 2

both campuses conducted statewide Surveys among comparably-sized probability samples and shared their common-content data pertaining to voting inclinations in several upcoming North Carolina primary races. Both campuses also investigated additional, but different topics in their respective SUrveYS-

Instrument. The authors' survey instrument was a two-page, 48-item questionnaire. In addition to 1 6 items concerning voting inclinations among registered and intending voters, there were three additional parts of the instrument that were posed to all willing survey respondents. Respectively, these concerned: attitudes toward 'Negative Political Campaign Ad- vertisements' (six items); perceptions concerning 'Federal Governmental Responsiveness and Personal Efficacy' (four items); and, a 'Political Knowledge "Quiz'" (14 items). The specific items included in each of these three parts of the questionnaire are shown in Appendix A, along wi th the five 'Voter Registration and Inclination Items' and seven 'Socio- demographic Variables' that were considered for this report.

Data Collection. Data were collected by telephone in February, 1986. Interviewers were trained UNCW political science and sociology students who in many instances were veterans of one-to- several prior telephone surveys directed by the authors. Supervised work crews of approximately 20 interviewers placed calls during t h e 6 - 9 p.m. t i m e period each evening from Sunday through Thursday of one week. A computergenerated probability sample of North Carolina telephone numbers was provided by the Chapel Hill Carolina Poll directors, along with copies of detailed dialing instructions and the assur- ance that appropriate use of this information would yield a representative sample. Vigilance was main- tained to insure that interviewers understood and complied wi th those instructions.

7 3

Sample. The U N C W data collection effort yielded 621 interviews sufficiently completed to be deemed usable. However, data entry and initial univariate analysis revealed that 22 cases were nonresidents of North Carolina, and those cases were deleted. Since present study interest was focused upon the negative political campaign issue, analysis was limited to those respondents among the remaining 599 who "mattered most"; i.e., were both registered to vote and indicated that they definitely or probably would vote in the June, 1986, primaries. (Unti l 1988, North Carolina primary elections were limited to voters registered with either the Democratic or the Republican party; in that year, the Repulican party opened its primary to unaffiliated voters.) There were 374 cases who met these final criteria, and th is report concerns that subsample of the data set.

Scales and Measurement. Both the introduction and the six negative campaign advertisement items that were read t o respondents are shown in the upper panel of Appendix A. These Agree/No Opinion/Dis- agree items (computer-scored, respectively, as 1, 2 , and 3) resulted from efforts to incorporate the salient dimensions of this issue in a series that included both positive and negative statements about negative campaign ads. The third item shown was inspired by the fact that Republican U.S. Senate aspirant, David Funderburk (backed by the Jesse Helms' Congres- sional Club political action committee), had begun using negative TV ads against his rival, James Broyhill, by the time that composition of this com- plement of items was begun. Broyhill defeated Funderburk in the Republican primary, but then lost to Democat Terry Sanford in the general election.

Attitudes toward negative political campaign advertisements were measured by subjecting the six pertinent statements to factor analysis (varimax; three iterations; Kaiser normalization), which yielded

74

two factors. The first factor was substantially loaded by the second ( .69), third ( . 6 3 ) , and sixth (.61) state m e n ts. These state m en ts characterize negative ads as deficient in the fairness and truthfulness of their content, and as campaign tactics that are inappropriate in same-party (primary) races and that intimidate good people from running for elected office. Since all of these statements seemed to address the fairness or ethics of negative campaign advertising, they were separated into a scale, hereinafter called ETHICS, based upon the number of statements (0-3) out of the three that respondents agreed with. The second factor was substantially loaded by the first (.68) and fourth ( .73) statements. These two statements assert that negative ads are effective for both voters and candidates because they provide important political information to voters and are more likely to help rather than hinder the candidacies of political hopefuls who use them. Since this pair of statements seemed to concern the effectiveness of negative campaign ads, a separate scale using these two statements was composed, hereinafter called EFFECTS, based upon the number of statements (0-2) that respondents agreed with. Because the fifth statement exhibited small and similar loadings on both factors ( .49 and .38) , it was deleted from further consideration.

The second panel in Appendix A displays efforts to minimally tap respondent comprehension, con- fidence, cynicism and perceived average-citizen influence concerning the U.S. federal government. These Agree/No Opinion/Disagree statements (also cornputer-scored, respectively, as 1, 2 , and 3) parallel the political cynicism and efficacy items used in the Center for Political Studies national election surveys. These items also were initially analyzed by subjecting their scores to factor analysis, and again two factors emerged. The first factor was highly loaded by the first (.80) and third (.77) statements which, respectively, assert that U.S. congressional representatives

7 5

and political parties are genuinely responsive to, and interested in, their constituencies. The three-point (0-2) scale of respondent agreement that was composed from this pair of statements is flagged below as RESPONSE. The second factor was highly loaded by the second (.84) and fourth (.75) statements which, respectively, allege that the average person has only a scant influence upon - or grasp of - political processes. Since this pair of statements seemed to indicate respondent perceptions about personal efficacy in federal governmental decision-making processes, the three-point (0-2) scale of respondent, agreement that was composed from them is flagged below as EFFICACY.

The fourteewitem political quiz is shown in the third panel of Appendix A. Because of the sensitivity associated with quizzing individuals in a social survey, this section of the questionnaire was presented last and subdivided into five subgroupings df items, each introduced with the less-threatening clause, "If you happen to know, please tell me . . ." Percentages of this report's respondents answering each item correctly also are shown in the appendix.

Tallies of correct responses were computed for this scale, and a factor analysis of the scores was conducted. Although three factors did emerge, with nearly all of the fourteen items loading highly on a factor, close scrutiny failed to yield interpretations of any factor which seemed plausible. Therefore, only overall political quiz scores were used in subsequent analysis, and hereinafter this variable is termed POLSCORE.

The final two panels of Appendix A display the voter registration and inclination items (Vl-V5), and the sociodemographic variables (Sl-S7), that were analyzed for this report. The specific comparison for questions in each of these two sets are indicated in paren theses.

76

AN A L Y SI S

ETHICS and EFFECTS of negative ads. The percentages of respondents agreeing with none-to-all of the items on the 4-point (0-3) ETHICS scale were as follows: 1 2 % , 22%, 32%, and 34%. On this scale, the higher the score the more unethical the respondent considered negative ads to be. The distribution on this scale revealed a skew toward t h e higher scores, indicating a general tendency toward the view that such advertisements are not ethical. Similar findings were reported by Surlin and Gordon (1977) and Garramore (1984).

The percentages of respondents agreeing with none-to-all of the items on the 3-point (0-2) EFFECTS scale were as follows: 45%, 40%, and 15%. On th i s scale, the higher t h e score the more effective the respondent considered negative ads to be. The distribution on th is scale contrasted what was obtained for ETHICS in that here there was a skew toward the lower scores, indicating a general tendency toward the view that such advertisements are not effective. Surlin and Gordon (1977) also found a general tendency to perceive negative political ads as ineffective in creating favorable attitudes toward their sponsors.

In s u m , the independent findings for ETHICS and EFFECTS were that respondents distributed themselves across all values of the scales composed for these measures, but that they also demonstrated the general tendency to regard negative political campaign advertisements as unethical and ineffective practices. Bivariate consideration of ETHICS and EFFECTS suggested that these two views were not independent of. each other. Specifically, computation of a Pearsonian Correlation Coefficient (r = 0.14) for th i s pair of variables revealed t h e m to be significantly correlated ( P L 0.05). Following are t h e results

77

of multivariate analyses of the ETHICS and EFFECTS scales, seeking to determine, among other things, whether or not this apparent correlation held after consideration of other study variables.

ETHICS of negative ads. Table 1 summarizes the analysis of those variables that influenced opinions about the ethics of negative political campaign advertisements (ETHICS). The upper panel of the table shows, first, that four nonmetric factors and four metric covariates were related to ETHICS a t PSO.10. The PSO.10 criterion, rather than the PSO.05 criterion, was used to avoid premature dismissal of variables that might reveal themselves to be of greater consequence after the introduction of statistical controls.

This panel of the table also shows that there were numerous interrelationships among the independent variables that were significant a t PSO.10. For this reason, and because this list included both metric and nonmetric variables, the examination of the ETHICS of negative political campaign advertisements was elaborated by using all of these variables in an analysis of covariance.

It was reasoned that the effects upon ETHICS of sociodemographic and voting/voting registration variables should be accounted for prior to determining if any other study variables had a significant impact upon ETHICS. That is, it was considered defensible to examine the influence of personal characteristics and demonstrated political behavior before consider- ing the additional influence of political awareness and opinion. Therefore, the analysis of variance procedure was structured so that t h e relevant sociodemographic and voting/voting registration factors were tested first, each adjusted for the effects of the other. Then, with the effects of these factors removed, the additional impact of each relevant covariate was assessed, adjusted for the effects of

78

t h e factors and other covariates.

The conduct of this procedure revealed t h a t two factors (V2, V4) and one covariate (EFFECTS) were not of significance (P70.10) once the effects upon ETHICS of t h e other factors and covariates were accounted for. Therefore, these variables were deleted and t h e same analysis of covariance procedure was conducted once again using the five remaining independent variables.

The results of this procedure are shown i n the lower panel of Table 1. There, it can be seen that four of these five independent variables influenced attitudes about the ETHICS of negative political campaign advertisements a t or below the conven- tionally accepted 0.05 level of significance. In short, the extent to which such advertisements were considered unethical was directly related to education, perceived responsiveness of politicians/political parties, perceived political efficacy of the average person, and political knowledge of t h e respondent. This panel of the table also shows that the extent to which females were more likely than males to regard such ads to be unethical was very nearly significant a t the 0.05 level. Among the respondents who were considered, these five variables collectively explained nine percent of the variance in perceived ethics of negative political campaign advertisements.

79

TABLE 1

ETHICS O F NEGATIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ADVERTISEMENTS:

VARIABLES SICNlFlCANTLY RELATED (X) A T P 5 0.10

FINAL AFHLYSIS CF CWMIANCE RESULTS:

Factors (each adjusted for the other) assessed first, then Covariates (each adjusted for both factors and other Covariates)

Source of Variation: F SIC. CF F

factors: Total 4.198 0.002 s1 57

Covariates: Total

4.470 0.004 3.615 0.058 5.478 0.001

E S W S E 3.871 0.050 EFflCeCl 7.787 0.006 m= 7.689 0.006

WLTIPLE K = 0.30 MlLTlPLE R SQJWED = 0.09

ETHICS: The ethics of neqative political carmaiRn advertisarmts EFFECTS: The effectiveness of neRative political cannaiqn ads

HESR=NSE: The resDonsiveness of politicians/wliticaI parties to

EFfICeCl: Political efficacy of the averaee person RXXZIE: Score on 14-item oolitical nuiz

interestsloDinions of Beneral poDulation

V2: Probability of Votine: Vav 86 Primary (Def ini tely/Probably) V4: Hov Ftespondent Voted: Nov. 94 Elec. (Straiqht/Solit Ticket) SI: form1 Education ( < H.S./H.S./Sm Col I-TechlBacc., !%re) 57: Sex

80

EFFECTS of negative ads. The sequence of analysis that was employed to examine the perceived effectiveness (EFFECTS) of negative political campaign advertisements was identical to t h e procedure used to examine the perceived ETHICS of such ads. Specifically, it was first determined that six of the independent variables were significantly related (PfO.lO) to EFFECTS. They are shown in the upper panel of Table 2, where i t also is clearly revealed that there were numerous significant interrelationships among these three metric, and three nonmetric, variables. In short, analysis of covariance of this dependent variable also was defensible.

The initial factors-then-cmariates analysis of covariance of EFFECTS revealed that each of these three factors retained significant influence upon EFFECTS after controlling for the other two. How- ever, the influence upon EFFECTS of both ETHICS and POLSCORE was reduced to nonsignificance after removing the influence upon EFFECTS of t h e three factors and EFFICACY. Therefore, these two variables were deleted and the analysis of covariance of EFFECTS was repeated with the four remaining independent variables.

The results of t h i s final examination of the perceived effectiveness of negative political campaign advertisements are shown in the lower panel of Table 2. Clearly, each of these four independent variables demonstrated a highly significant (PS0.05) influence upon EFFECTS after imposing statistical controls. Specifically, the perceived effectiveness of negative ads was significantly higher among males and born-again Christians and varied directly wi th perceived political efficacy among average persons. Also, respondents with high school education were more likely than those with either more or less education to consider negative campaign ads to be effective. Among the respondents who were considered, t h e collective influence of these four vari-

81

ables upon perceived effectiveness of negative political campaign advertisements was coincidentally identical to the collective influence of those variables that had a significant impact upon ETHICS; i.e., nine percent of the variance in EFFECTS was explained by these four variables.

TABLE 2

EFFECTS O F NEGATIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ADVERTIKMENTS:

VARIABLES SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED (X) A T P 5 0.10

. - - -

FINAL W T S l S OF WpAIplKT WULTS:

Factors (each adjusted for the other two) assessed first, then Covariate (adjusted for all three Factors)

Source of Variation: F SIC. CF F

Factors: Total 1.187 0.000 51 @. 336 0.005 56 3.888 0.021 57 7.589 0.006

Covariates: Total 7.895 0.005 EFFICPLY 7.895 0.005

WLTIPLE K = 0.30 W T I P L E K SQJ&Xll = 0.09

NICS: The ethics of neqative Dolitical carrpaiqn advertismnts EFFECTS: The effectivcne<s of nqative political c q a i q n ads

F F I W : Political efficacy of the averaqe person KXLUXE: Score on I4-item political quiz

51: Form1 Education ( < H . S . I H . S . / S m Coll-Tech/Bacc.,:kbre) 56: krn-Aqain Status (Christian/Born-Aqain OlristianIOther) 57: Sex

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was an exploratory investigation of voters' attitudes toward negative political campaign advertisements. Six items pertaining to this topic were included on a questionnaire that was adminis-

82

tered by telephone to adult North Carolinians during one week in February, 1986. The two basic goals were to discern the relevant dimensions of the negative ad phenomenon, and to disclose the personal characteristics, and political attitudes and behavior, that related significantly to alternative views about such ads among the voting public.

The data collection effort yielded a total of 621 interviews. Since research interest was focused upon the negative political campaign issue, analysis was limited to the 3 7 4 respondents who both were registered to vote and indicated t h a t they definitely or probably would vote in t h e June, 1986, North Carolina primaries.

Attitudes toward negative political campaign advertisements were measured initially by factor analysis of the six questionnaire statements that pertained to this issue, yielding two factors. The first factor was substantially loaded by statements that was interpreted to indicate the fairness or ethics (ETHICS) of negative campaign advertising. The second factor was substantially loaded by statements that was interpreted to indicate the effectiveness (EFFECTS) of negative campaign ads.

Although t h e respondents distributed themselves across all values of the computed scales for ETHICS and EFFECTS, there was a tendency or skew among them in the direction of regarding negative ads as unethical and ineffective practices. Similar findings were reported by Surlin and Gordon (1977) . Pearsonian correlation of this pair of scales indicated a significant, positive coefficient, but subsequent, multivariate analysis suggested otherwise.

Separate analyses of covariance were conductea for ETHICS and EFFECTS, respectively employing all nonmetric and metric questionnaire items that dem-

8 3

onstrated significant bivariate relationships with each of these two variables. The first covariance procedure revealed that the extent to which such advertisements were considered unethical was directly related (P 4 0.05) to education, perceived responsiveness of-politicians/political parties, perceived political efficacy of the average person, and political knowledge of the respondent. Also, the extent to which females were more likely than males to regard such ads to be unethical was very nearly significant a t the 0.05 level. The second covariance procedure indicated that the perceived effectiveness of negative ads was significantly ( P 4 0 . 0 5 ) higher among males and born-again Christians, and varied directly with perceptions of average-person political efficacy. Also, respondents with high school education were more likely than others with either more or less education to consider negative campaign ads to be effective. Coincidently, the same amount (nine percent) of variance in both the perceived fairness and effectiveness of negative campaign ads, was explained by the analysis of variance procedures that were used.

Once again, the dearth of prior empirical analyses of voters' attitudes toward negative ads meant this essentially was an exploratory study. Only three published empirical analyses that focused on voters' attitudes toward negative political campaign advertisements were located. Therefore, the present study m i ht be especially vulnerable to any of the

exploratory research efforts. Perhaps most uncertain is the quality of the initial measures of negative ads. The choice of the six statements that were used was heavily based upon the descriptive and empirical literature that was reviewed as well as the authors' own intuitions about negative ad issues in North Carolina and nationally. Of course, all analytical treatment of the notion of negative ads was wedded to these six statements, regardless of whether or not prudent choices were made in the subsequent mea-

variety o B errors that detract from the usefulness of

84

surement techniques employed. For example, no at- tempt was made in this study to distinguish among the communications media used to transmit political campaign advertisements, i.e., broadcast versus print versus billboard.

It is clear that even if the ultimate dependent measures concerning negative ads -- fairness and effectiveness - are plausible, m u c h about each of these two dimensions of the notion remains unex- plained. Specifically, less than one-tenth of the variance in either of these scales was explained by all other significantly-related study variables. The results did provide some evidence that views about the fairness and effectiveness of negative ads were not randomly distributed among the sample of registered and probable voters. However, even if the right path was taken in operationalizing the concept of negative ads, only modest headway was made at determining the sources of variation in viewpoints.

A note of caution is also warranted concerning the sample of likely primary election voters used in this study. As Heclo (1973 , p. 25) points out, the l'selectoratel' that chooses the nominees in primary election contests is different in size and composition from the electorate that votes in broaderbased general elections. Therefore, applying this study's methods to a general election sample could produce different results.

Research findings indicated a tendency to regard negative political campaign ads as unethical and ineffective practices, but substantial minorities a- mong the respondents did not hold these views. First, there seemed to be a consxent pattern among those who did or did not consider such ads to be unethical. Those who did tended to have more education, more political I knowledge, higher assessments of the responsiveness of politicians/political parties, and higher perceived political efficacy scores. Those who

85

were less likely to consider such ads unethical also were less educated, less politically knowledgeable, and less likely to consider politiciansbolitical parties to be responsive to their constituencies, and had lower perceived political efficacy scores. These findings are in line with those reported by Surlin and Gordon (1977) that lower-SES respondents were less likely to label negative political ads as unethical. A long history of research has consistently revealed direct relationships concerning education, political knowledge, and political faith and efficacy.

The results concerning the effectiveness of negative ads were more puzzling. Males, born-again Christians , and respondents w i t h higher political efficacy scores were more likely to consider such ads to be effective political practices for the candidates who use them. The review of these results, in tandem with the above-mentioned results concerning the perceived fairness of negative campaign ads, leads to a very tentative interpretation.

Perhaps these results support the notion that both idealism (Le., high moral standards) and prag- matism (Le., what works; ends, or "extremes," over means) in political perceptions are reflected here, albeit in a somewhat schizophrenic fashion. On the one hand, it appears that those who tended to be doing better within the existing political economy (those higher in socioecomonic status -- to the extent that S.E.S. is tapped by differences in education and political knowledge -- and higher in political efficacy scores) held a dimmer view towards a practice - negative advertising -- that departs from at least the spirit of cherished political principles and ideals. On the other hand, males, born-again Christians, and individuals who scored higher in political efficacy were more likely to think that such ads work. It appears that at least the latter respondents (i.e., individuals who scored high in perceived average- person political efficacy) grasped the possibility that

86

negative ads, as with other questioned or questionable forms of behavior, exemplify a classic dilemma. They may trouble one's conscience, but they also are recognized as behavioral strategies that may serve one's purposes.

REFERENCES

Books and Articles in Books

Agranoff, Robert, ed. 1972. The New Style in Elec- tion Campaigns. Boston: Holbrook Press.

Diamond, Edwin and Stephen Bates. 1984. The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising on Television. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Felknor, Bruce L. 1966. Dirty Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

Goldenberg, Edie and Michael W. Traugott. 1984. Campaigning for Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Graber, Doris. 1980. Mass Media and American Pol- - itics. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Greenfield, Jeff. 1980. Playing to Win: An Insider's Guide to Politics. New York: Simon and Schus- ter.

Heclo, Hugh. 1973. Presidential and Prime Minister- ial Selection. In Donald R. Matthews, ed * '- Per- spectives on Presidential Selection. Washington DC: Brookings.

87

Israel , Kay. 1983. The In te rac t ion of Pol i t ica l At t i - t udes wi th t h e P re fe rence of F o r m a t o f Tele- vised Pol i t ica l Commerc ia l s . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. D e p a r t m e n t of Pol i t ical Sc ience , MIT.

Joslyn, Richard A. 1984. Mass Media and Elec t ion Campaigns. New York: Random House.

Kaid, Lynda L e e et. al. 1974. Pol i t ica l Campa ign Communica t ions : A Bibliography and Guide to t h e Li te ra ture . Metuchen, N J: Sca rec row Press .

Lang, Kur t and Gladys Engle Lang. 1968. Pol i t ics and Television. ChicaEo: Quadrangle Books.

Lazars fe ld , Paul R., Bernard Berelson, a n d Haze l Gaudet . 1944. T h e People 's choice: How t h e Voter Makes up His Mind in a P res iden t i a l C a m - paign. New York: Columbia Univers i ty Press. -

Lowery, Shearon and Melvin L. DeFleur . 1983. Mile- s t o n e s in Mass Communica t ion R e s e a r c h : M x a Effec ts . New York: Longman.

MacNeil, Rober t . 1968. The People Machine: T h e Inf luence of Television on Amer ican Politics. New York: Harpe r and Row.

McGinniss, Joe. 1969. The Selling o f t h e Pres ident . New York: T r iden t Press.

Mueller, John E. 1973. War, P res iden t s and Publ ic Opinion. New York: Wilev.

Nimmo, Dan D. 1970. The Pol i t ica l Persuaders : T h e Techniques of Modern Elec t ion Campaigns. Englewood Cl i f f s , NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nimmo, Dan D. 1974. Popular Images o f Pol i t ics : A Taxonomy. Engle wood Cl i f f s , NJ : &entice-Hall.

88

Nimmo, Dan D. 1976. Candidates and Their Images. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear.

Nimmo, Dan D. and James E. Combs. 1980. Sub- liminal Politics: Myths and Mythmaker- America. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Nimmo, Dan D. and James E. Combs. 1983. Medi- ated Political Realities. New York: Longman.

Patterson, Thomas E. and Robert D. McClure. 1976. The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Politics. New York: Putnam.

Rubin, Bernard. 1967. Political Television. Belmont: Wads wor t h.

Sabato, Larry J. 1981. The Rise of Political Con- New Ways of Winning Elections. New sultants:

York: Basic Books.

Safire, William. 1978. Safire's Political Dictionary: An Enlarged, Up-to-Date Edition of the New Language of Politics. New York: Random House.

Schram, Martin. 1987. The Great American Video Game: Presidential Politics in the Television Age!. New York: Morrow.

Schwartz, Tony. 1973. The Responsive Chord. N e w Y ork: Anchor/Dou bleday.

Snider, William D. Helms and Hunt: ?'he North Carolina Senate Race. ChaDel Hill, NC: North Carolina University Press.

Spero, Robert. 1980. The Duping of the American Voter: Dishonestv and DeceDtion in Presidential ., Television Advertising. New York: Lippincott Crowell.

89

Wyckoff, Gene. 1968. The I m a g e Candida tes : Ameri- c a n Pol i t ics in t h e Age o f Television. New York: Macmillan.

Jou rna l Ar t i c l e s

Alexander , Herber t . 1969. Communica t ions and Poli- t ics : The Medium and t h e Message. Law and Contemporary Socie ty , 34: 255-77.

Atkin, Charles K. et al. 1973/74. Qual i ty versus Quant i ty in Televised Pol i t ica l Ads. Publ ic Opinion Quar t e r ly , 3 7: 209-224.

Atkin, Char l e s K. and G. Heald. 1976. E f f e c t s o f Pol i t ica l Advertising. Publ ic Opinion Quar t e r ly , 40: 216-228.

Bloom, Howard S. and H. Douglas Pr ice . 1975. Voter Response to Short-run Economic Con- ditions: The A s y m m e t r i c E f f e c t o f Prosper i ty and Recession. Amer ican Pol i t ica l Sc ience Review. 69:1240-1254.

Donohue, Thomas R. 1973-1974. I m p a c t o f Viewer Predisposi t ions on Pol i t ica l TV Commerc ia l s . Jou rna l o f Broadcast ing, 18:3-15.

Gar ramone , Gina M. 1984. Voter Responses to Negat ive Pol i t ica l Ads. Journa l i sm Q u a r t e r l y , 61/2:250-259.

Ghorpade , Shalendra. 1986. Agenda Se t t ing : A Test of Advert is ing 's Neg lec t ed Funct ion. Jou rna l of Advert is ing Resea rch , 26/4:23-27.

90

Gi lbe r t , Rober t E. 1986. The Eisenhower Campaign o f 1952: War H e r o as Television Candida te . Pol i t ical Communica t ion and Persuasion, 3:293- 311.

H o f s t e t t e r , C. Richard and Cl i f f Zukin. 1979. TV Network News and Advert is ing in t h e Nixon and McGovern Campaigns. Journal ism Quar te r ly , 56 : 106-11 5, 152.

J acobson , Gary C. 1975. The Impac t o f Broad- cast Campaigning on Elec tora l Outcomes . Jou rna l o f Pol i t ics , 37-769-793.

Joslyn, Richard A. 1980. Manifestat ions of Elazar ' s Pol i t ical Subcul ture: State Public Opinion and the C o n t e n t of Pol i t ica l Campaign Advertising. Publius, 10/2:37-58.

Kaid , Lynda Lee. 1976. Measures o f Pol i t ical Adver- Jou rna l o f Adver t k i n g Resea rch , 1 6 : 4 9- tising.

53.

Kernel l , Samuel . 1977. Pres ident ia l Popular i ty and Negat ive Voting. Amer ican Pol i t ical Sc ience Review, 7 1 : 44-6 6 .

Krugman, H e r b e r t E. 1965. T h e Impac t of Television Adver t ising : Learning without Involve m e n t . Public Opinion Quar t e r ly , 29:349-56.

Lau,

Lau,

Richard R. 1982. Negat iv i ty in Pol i t ical Per- cept ion. Pol i t ica l Behavior, 4:353-378.

Richard R. 1985. Two Explanat ions fo r Negat iv- i t y E f f e c t s in Pol i t ica l Behavior. Amer ican Journa l o f Pol i t ica l Sc ience , 29:119-138.

McClure, Rober t and Thomas Patterson. 1974. Tele- vision News and Pol i t ica l Advertising: The I m p a c t of Exposure on Voter Beliefs. Com-

91

munication Research, 1:3-31.

Meadow, Robert G. and Lee Sigelman. 1982. Some Effec ts and Noneffects of Campaign Com- mercials: An Experimental Study. Political Behavior, 4:163-175.

Merrit t , Sharyne. 1984. Negative Political Adver- tising: Some Empirical Findings. Journal of Advertising , 13 13 : 2 7-3 8.

Rothschild, Michael L. 1978. Political Advertising: A Neglected Policy Issue in Marketing. Journal of Marketing Research. 15:58-71.

Simon, Herbert and F. Stern. 1955. The Effec ts of Television upon Voting in Iowa in t h e 1952 Presidential Election. - American Polit ical Sci- ence Review. 49:470-478.

Surlin, S tuar t H. and Thomas F. Gordon. 1977. How Values A f f e c t Att i tudes toward Direc t Ref- e r e n c e Political Advertising. Journalism Quar- ter ly , 54:89-98.

Swinyard, William R. and Kenneth A. Coney. 1978. Promotional Ef fec ts on a High-versus Low- Involvement Electorate. Journal of Consumer Research, 5 :4 1-48.

Magazine Articles

Bailey, Doug. January 1988. Famous for 15 Min- utes. - Campaigns d( Elections, vol. 8/no. 5:47- 52.

Ehrenhalt, Alan. 10 November 1984. 1984 Elec- tions: Negative Campaigns. Congressional Quarter ly Weekly Report , 4214 5: 2479.

92

Ehrenhalt , Alan. 23 November 1985. 'Feel Good' Themes vs. ' Micropoli tics. ' Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report , 43/47:2479.

Ehrenhalt, Alan. 7 December 1985. Politics: Tech- nology, Strategy Bring N e w Campaign Era. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report , 43/49: 2 5 59-2565.

Nugent, John F. March-April 1987. Positively Nega- tive. Campaigns PC Elections, vol. 7/nO. 6:47-49.

Tucker, Leslie A. and David J. Heller. March-April 1987. Putting Ethics into Practice. Campaigns & Elections, vol. "/no. 6:42-46.

Watson, Tom. 29 March 1986. Debate Over 'Nega- tive Ads': Burnout from Hunt-Helms Affec ts N.C.'s 1986 Contests. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report , 44/13 : 7 19-7 2 0.

93

APPENDIX A ( C o d n d )

P d i r L J Kmwledw Quir

"B ~ C ' W in ic rored in leuninq 11 m o l e in ow ylrvey u c Larniliu with the name1 01 C U t J l n peoole In (orernrnenr. I f you hJppen to know. please tell me....

" . . . the 1-1 NW a1 u y 01 t he Iollowinc tkce -leL

I. The R e i i d c n t 0 1 the U.S. (9% annncrd mrrrct ly) 2. The Crrrcrnor 01 X.C. (67%) I. The R c D r e i n r a t i w Lor your ConRrosi-1 d i s t r i c t (17s)

94

Documents

NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS: VOTERS‘ ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR FAIRNESS AND EFFECTIVENESS