Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 3–26 | Cite as

Dog-Whistle Politics: Multivocal Communication and Religious Appeals

Original Paper


This paper explores how multivocal appeals, meaning appeals that have distinct meanings to different audiences, work with respect to religious language. Religious language is common in politics, but there is great variation in its effectiveness. I argue that multivocal appeals can resonate as religious with select audiences but have no religious content for other listeners. I test the effectiveness of multivocal and obvious religious appeals experimentally with two national samples: an ingroup that understands the religious connotations in a multivocal appeal and a religiously diverse outgroup that does not. Religious appeals are persuasive for the ingroup, but an obvious religious appeal can be politically costly by triggering negative reactions among outgroup members, while the religious meaning in a multivocal appeal eludes them. Obvious religious appeals are costly in the diverse audience because of different preferences over the appropriate role for religion in political speech.


Religion and politics Campaigns Persuasion 



I am grateful for helpful comments from Matt Barreto, John Brehm, Josh Busby, Kyle Endres, Shana Kushner Gadarian, Melissa Harris-Perry, Tali Mendelberg, Chris Parker, Nick Valentino, Penny Visser, Chris Wlezien, and three anonymous reviewers. I also received research assistance from Andrew Dilts, who helped create the campaign ads and Charles Lipson, who gamely portrayed the political candidate. This research was funded by an NSF Dissertation Improvement Grant and supported by the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University and the Harrington Faculty Fellows Program at UT Austin.


  1. Aaker, J. L., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Grier, S. A. (2000). Nontarget markets and viewer distinctiveness: The impact of target marketing on advertising attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(3), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albertson, B. L. (2011). Religious appeals and implicit attitudes. Political Psychology, 32(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs, D. (2006, April 15). A century of faith: The Pentecostals; religious movement spread from Los Angeles worldwide. The Plain Dealer.Google Scholar
  5. Brumbaugh, A. M. (2002). Source and nonsource cues in advertising and their effects on the activation of cultural and subcultural knowledge on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 258–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley, W. F. (2000). Partial democracy from the court. National Review, 52(14), 54.Google Scholar
  7. Calfano, B. R., & Djupe, P. A. (2009). God talk: religious cues and electoral support. Political Research Quarterly, 62(2), 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. Q. (2008). The religion card: gay marriage and the 2004 Presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapp, C. (2012). Religious rhetoric and American Politics: the endurance of civil religion in electoral campaigns. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooperman, A. (2004, December 6). Bush’s references to god defended by speechwriter: President does not claim divinity is on his side. Washington Post. Google Scholar
  12. Domke, D., & Coe, K. (2007). The god strategy: how religion became a political weapon in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants: a defense of the “narrow data base.”. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finke, R., & Stark, R. (1992). The churching of America, 1776–1990: Winners and losers in our religious economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fournier, R., Sosnik, D. B., & Dowd, M. J. (2006). Applebee’s America: How successful political, business, and religious leaders connect with the new American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  16. Gallup Jr., G. (2002). Who places the most faith in religion? Retrieved May 23, 2010 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/6637/Who-Places-Most-Faith-Religion.aspx.
  17. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Geis, S. (2006, April 30). Latino Catholics increasingly drawn to Pentecostalism; shift among immigrants could affect politics. Washington Post. Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, J. M. (1996). Race, campaign politics, and the realignment in the south. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goodin, R. E., & Saward, M. (2005). Dog whistles and democratic mandates. The Political Quarterly, 76, 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2005). Playing the race card in the post-Willie Horton Era: The impact of racialized code words on support for punitive crime policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanner, B. (2000). Hide in Plain Sight. Working Woman, 25, 14.Google Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2004, October 17). What they said, what was heard. New York Times.Google Scholar
  26. Kuo, D. (2006). Tempting faith: An inside story of political seduction. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Layman, G. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lincoln, B. (2004). Words matter: How bush speaks in religious code. Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2010 from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/12/words_matter.
  30. Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Morone, J. A. (2003). Hellfire nation: The politics of sin in American history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Olson, D. V. A. (1998). Religious pluralism in contemporary US counties. American Sociological Review, 63, 759–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1259–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmer, K. S. (2000, July 4). Gay consumers in the driver’s seat: Subaru’s new ad campaign is among those signaling to homosexual buyers. Washington Post.Google Scholar
  35. Pew Research Center. (2008). Conservative disillusionment: More Americans question religion’s role in politics. Results from the 2008 Annual religion and public life survey. The Pew forum on religion and public life.Google Scholar
  36. Pew Research Center. (2012, March 21). More see “too much” religious talk by politicians.Google Scholar
  37. Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  38. Safire, W. (2005, April 24). On language: Dog whistle. New York Times.Google Scholar
  39. Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1982). Sexism, racism, and ageism in voting behavior: An experimental analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(4), 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tilly, C. (2003). The politics of collective violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & White, I. K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White, I. K. (2007). When race matters and when it doesn’t: Racial group differences in response to racial cues. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilcox, C. (2000). Onward Christian soldiers? The religious right in American politics (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas, AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations