Political Behavior

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 266–284 | Cite as

Cognitive information levels, voter preferences, and local partisan political activity: A field experimental study on the effects of timing and order of message presentation

  • David A. Bositis
  • Denise L. Baer
  • Roy E. Miller
Article

Abstract

This article is based upon a factorial design field experiment conducted during the 1980 election campaign. The experiment was conducted to assess whether there is an optimal message strategy available to local party workers in their efforts to inform and persuade voters. The study assesses whether the timing of communications, i.e., near or distant to election day, and the order of message presentation, i.e., whether presenting important information early or late in a communication, have any effects upon voters' information levels and electoral decisions. The analysis supports an interpretation of recency effects, i.e., information presented last in a partisan appeal was more likely to facilitate information and persuasion effects than information positioned first. However, this finding was conditioned upon the timing of message presentation with appeals referencing familiar partisan material only effective near to election day and appeals referencing less familiar and nonpartisan material only effective further from election day.

Keywords

Experimental Study Field Experiment Factorial Design Political Activity Recency Effect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agranoff, R. (1976).The Management of Election Campaigns Boston: Holbrook Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atkin, C. K. (1980). Political campaigns: Mass communication and persuasion. In M. E. Roloff and G. R. Miller (eds.),Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Baer, D. L., Bositis, D. A., and Miller, R. E. (1981). A field experimental study of a precinct committeeman's canvassing efforts in a primary election: cognitive effects. In M. Burgoon (ed.),Communication Yearbook, 5. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  4. Ballenger, G., and Hennessy, B. (1974). Door-to-door canvassing pays off: An experimental study in a nonpartisan suburb.Experimental study of politics 3:1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Blydenburgh, J. C. (1971). A controlled experiment to measure the effects of personal contact campaigning.Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:365–381.Google Scholar
  6. Bochel, J. M., and Denver, D. T. (1971). Canvassing, turnout and party support: an experiment.British Journal of Political Science 1:257–269.Google Scholar
  7. Bositis, D. A., and Miller, R. E. (1982). Factors affecting the successful communication of cognitive information by a precinct committeeman. In M. Burgoon (ed.),Communication Yearbook 6. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Burgoon, M., and Bettinghaus, E. P. (1980). Persuasive message strategies. In M. E. Roloff and G. R. Miller (eds.),Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1963).Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Eldersveld, S. J., and Dodge, R. W. (1954). Personaanl contact or mail propaganda? An experiment in voting turnout and attitude change. In D. Katz (ed.),Public Opinion and Propaganda. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Glaser, W. A. (1965–1966). Television and voting turnout.Public Opinion Quarterly 29:71–86.Google Scholar
  13. Gosnell, H. F. (1927).Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change.American Psychologist 14:8–17.Google Scholar
  15. Hovland, C. I., and Mandel, W. (1957). Is there a “law of primacy” in persuasion? In Hovland, ed.,Yale Studies in Attitude and Communication, Vol. I.Google Scholar
  16. Hovland, C. I., ed. (1957).Yale Studies in Attitude and Communication, Vol. I, The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jennings, M. K., and Niemi, R. G. (1981).Generations and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Keppel, G. (1973).Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Kramer, G. (1970–1971). The effects of precinet level canvassing on voting behavior.Public Opinion Quarterly 34:560–572.Google Scholar
  20. Lana, R. E. (1961). Familiarity and the order of presentation of persuasive communications.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62:573–577.Google Scholar
  21. Lana, R. E. (1963). Interest, media and order effects in persuasive communications.Journal of Psychology 56:9–13.Google Scholar
  22. Lana, R. E. (1964). Three theoretical interpretations of order effects in persuasive communications.Psychological Bulletin 61:314–320.Google Scholar
  23. Lund, F. H. (1925). The psychology of belief.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 20:174–196.Google Scholar
  24. Merelman, R. M. (1971).Political Socialization and Educational Climates. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  25. Milbrath, L. W., and Goel, M. L. (1977).Political Participation. (2nd ed.) Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, G. R., and Burgoon, M. (1978). Persuasion research: Review and commentary. In B. D. Rubin (ed.),Communication Yearbook 2. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, N., and Campbell, D. T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59:1–9.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, R. E., Bositis, D. A., and Baer, D. L. (1981). Stimulating voter turnout in a primary election: A field experiment with a precinct committeeman.International Political Science Review 2:445–460.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, R. E., Bositis, D. A., and Baer, D. L. (1982). Local party activity and the policy preferences of voters: A field experiment. Paper presented at the Southwestern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, R. E., and Richey, W. M. (1980). The effects of a campaign brochure “drop” in a county level race for state's attorney. In D. Nimmo (ed.),Communication Yearbook 4. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, R. E., and Robyn, D. L. (1975). A field experimental study of direct mail in a congressional campaign: What effects last until election day?Experimental Study of Politics 4:1–37.Google Scholar
  32. Orum, A. M., Cohen, R. S., Grasmuck, S., and Orum, A. W. (1977). Sex, socialization and politics. In M. Githens and J. L. Prestage (eds.),A Portrait of Marginality. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  33. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., and Brock, T. C. (1981).Cognitive Responses in Persuasion. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Rosnow, R., and Goldstein, J. (1967). Familiarity, salience and order of presentation of communications.Journal of Social Psychology 73:97–110.Google Scholar
  35. Rosnow, R. L., and Robinson, E. J. (1967).Experiments in Persuasion. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wolfinger, R. (1963). The influence of precient work on voting behavior.Public Opinion Quarterly 27:387–398.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc. 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Bositis
    • 1
  • Denise L. Baer
    • 2
  • Roy E. Miller
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceThe George Washington UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceHobart and William Smith CollegesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceSouthern Illinois UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations