Political Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 47–72 | Cite as

Measuring Exposure to Political Advertising in Surveys

Original Paper


Research on the influence of negative political advertising in America is characterized by fundamentally conflicting findings. In recent years, however, survey research using estimates of exposure based on a combination of self-reported television viewing habits and Campaign Media Analysis Group data (a database of all advertisements broadcast on national and cable television in the top 75 media markets) has argued that exposure to negative political advertising boosts interest in the campaign and turnout. This paper examines the measurement properties of self-reports of television viewing. I argue that the errors from common survey formats may both be nonrandom and larger than previously acknowledged. The nonrandom error is due to the tendency of politically knowledgeable individuals to be more sensitive to question format. Thus the inferences drawn about the relationship between political knowledge, exposure to negative ads, and political behavior are also sensitive to the measures used to estimate exposure. I demonstrate, however, that one commonly used measure of exposure—the log of estimated exposure—is not only more theoretically defensible but also alleviates some of the more serious problems due to measurement error.


Political advertising Measurement error Self-reported television viewing Survey research 


  1. Allen, C. (1965). Photographing the tv audience. Journal of Advertising Research, 5, 2–8.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: The case of negative advertising and turnout. American Political Science Review, 93, 901–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels, L. (1996). Entertainment television items on 1995 pilot study. Report to the National Election Studies Board of Overseers.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, W., & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, D. (2006). The resilient voter: Moving toward closure in the debate over negative campaigning and turnout. Journal of Politics, 68, 684–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1989). Effects of message repetition and position on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 3–12.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. (2003). Measuring the frequency of regular behaviors: Comparing the ‘typical week’ to the ‘past week. Sociological Methodology, 33, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinton, J., & Lapinski, J. (2004). ‘Targeted’ advertising and voter turnout: an experimental study of the 2000 presidential election. Journal of Politics, 66, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finkel, S., & Geer, J. (1998). A spot check: casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 573–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedman, P., Franz, M., & Goldstein, K. (2004). Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freedman, P., & Goldstein, K. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1189–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freedman, P., Goldstein, K., & Granato, J. (2000). Learning, expectations, and the effect of political advertising. Chicago: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  13. Geer, J. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002a). Campaign advertising and voter turnout: new evidence for a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64, 721–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002b). Lessons learned: Campaign advertising in the 2000 elections. Political Communication 19, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holbrook, A., Krosnick, J., Visser, P., Gardner, W., & Cacioppo, J. (2001). Attitudes toward presidential candidates and political parties: Initial optimism, inertial first impressions, and a focus on flaws. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 930–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93, 877–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahn, K., & Kenney, P. (2004). No holds barred: Negativity in U.S. Senate Campaigns. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Kan, M. Y., & Gershiny, J. (2006). Infusing time diary evidence into panel data: an exercise in calibrating time-use estimates for the BHPS. ISER Working Paper 2006-19. Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  20. Lau, R., & Pomper, G. (2001). Effects of negative campaigning on turnout in U.S. Senate elections, 1988–1998. Journal of Politics, 63, 804–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau, R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review, 93, 851–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, P. (2004). Inside the black box of negative campaign effects: Three reasons why negative campaigns mobilize. Political Psychology, 25, 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patterson, T., & McClure, R. (1976). Political advertising: Voter reaction to televised political commercials. Princeton: Citizen’s Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ridout, T., Shah, D., Goldstein, K., & Franz, M. (2004). Evaluating measures of campaign advertising exposure on political learning. Political Behavior, 26, 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stevens, D. (2005). Separate and unequal effects: Information, political sophistication and negative advertising in American elections. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 413–426.Google Scholar
  28. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. R., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wattenberg, M., & Brians, C. (1999). Negative campaign advertising: Demobilizer or mobilizer? American Political Science Review, 93, 891–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. West, D. (1994). Political advertising and news coverage in the 1992 California U.S. Senate campaigns. Journal of Politics, 56, 1053–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of ExeterPenrynEngland

Personalised recommendations