This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by CAPPELLA, J. N. Articles by JAMIESON, K. H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Broadcast Adwatch Effects

A Field Experiment

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON

Several national news networks adopted a strategy for responding to misleading, attack ads during the presidential campaign of 1992. These were called adwatches. The adwatches evaluated the content of political commercials for errors and deceptive and misleading claims. They did so, not simply by replaying the offending material and then offering commentary, but rather by interrupting the ad with commentary and repositioning the ad on the screen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of the adwatch on people's attitudes toward the source of the ad, the target of the ad, the ad itself, and recall and interpretation of the ad's content. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate overall effects of the adwatch procedures on an ad generated by the Buchanan campaign during the Michigan primary. The ad attacked the credibility of George Bush and his advisers. Particular formats were also tested. The adwatches affected attitudes toward the source of the ad and toward the perceived fairness and importance of the ad. Adwatches did not affect attitudes toward the object of the attack ad nor interpretation of the ad's content. Education interacted with experimental condition such that interpretations of the ad by the least well-educated portion of the sample were adversely affected by the adwatches in contrast to the better educated.

Communication Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, 342-365 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/009365094021003006


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. Bock Who's Minding the Gate?: Pool Feeds, Video Subsidies, and Political Images International Journal of Press/Politics, April 1, 2009; 14(2): 257 - 278. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Allen, D. P. Stevens, G. Marfleet, J. Sullivan, and D. Alger Local News and Perceptions of the Rhetoric of Political Advertising American Politics Research, July 1, 2007; 35(4): 506 - 540. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. W. Richardson Jr. Building a Better Ad Watch: Talking Patterns to the American Voter International Journal of Press/Politics, June 1, 1998; 3(3): 76 - 95. [Abstract]

				M. B. SALWEN Perceptions of Media Influence and Support for Censorship: The Third-Person Effect in the 1996 Presidential Election Communication Research, June 1, 1998; 25(3): 259 - 285. [Abstract]

				C. BENNETT Assessing the Impact of Ad Watches on the Strategic Decision-Making Process: A Comparative Analysis of Ad Watches in the 1992 and 1996 Presidential Elections American Behavioral Scientist, August 1, 1997; 40(8): 1161 - 1182. [Abstract]

				K. H. Jamieson and J. N. Cappella Setting the Record Straight: Do Ad Watches Help or Hurt? International Journal of Press/Politics, January 1, 1997; 2(1): 13 - 22. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. C. Tedesco,, L. M. McKinnon,, and L. L. Kaid Advertising Watchdogs: A Content Analysis of Print and Broadcast Ad Watches International Journal of Press/Politics, September 1, 1996; 1(4): 76 - 93. [Abstract]

				J. N. CAPPELLA and K. H. JAMIESON News Frames, Political Cynicism, and Media Cynicism The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1, 1996; 546(1): 71 - 84. [Abstract]