Political Behavior

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 69–95 | Cite as

Remembering Attack Ads: An Experimental Investigation of Radio

  • John G. Geer
  • James H. Geer


This article seeks to advance our understanding of the influence of attack advertising on the public in two ways. First, we examine whether the content of individuals' memory differs when exposed to positive or attack ads. Critics of attack advertising fear that “negativity” has pernicious effects on the citizenry, ranging from lessening people's faith in the political process to decreasing people's willingness to participate in elections. This article extends this general line of inquiry. How do attacks affect memory? Do they lead people to remember more things about the ads? Do they affect the accuracy of people's memories? Questions about memory are important from an information processing perspective, since the stored information is used to guide and shape behavior. We find that subjects' recall as many things about positive ads as attack ads. However, when taking a closer look at what they recall, it turns out that attack ads yield many more inaccurate memories than do positive ads. We discuss the implications of these findings. The second way this research advances the field is that we employ an experimental design that uses radio ads as our stimulus. Nearly all the work in this field has focused on television. Yet radio serves as an invaluable way for candidates to communicate with voters, especially in nonpresidential elections. We are a multimedia society, and we need to broaden our knowledge of the impact of political ads beyond television, especially if we want to forge a better understanding of how advertising works in state and local elections.

political advertising negativity memory attack politics radio experiments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, John. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22: 261–295.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, Stephen D., and Iyengar, Shanto (1995). Going Negative. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Iyengar, Shanto and Simon, Adam (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data. American Political Science Review 93: 901–910.Google Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, Adam, and Valentino, Nicholas (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review 88:829–38.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, David C. (2002). Rushed to Judgment? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brians, Craig L., and Wattenberg, Martin (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience. American Journal of Political Science 40: 172–193.Google Scholar
  8. Brewer, W. F. (1977). Memory for the pragmatic implication of sentences. Memory and Cognition 5: 673–678.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, Bruce (1996). Renewing Presidential Politics. New York: Roman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, Bruce (2000). Regime support and campaign reform. In Larry Bartels and Lynn Vavreck (eds.), Campaign Reform, pp. 173–200. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cappella, Joseph, and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1997). The Spiral of Cynicism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clinton, Joshua, and Lipinski, John S. (2003). Negative ads and turnout: Experimental results from the 2000 presidential elections. Journal of Politics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, A. M., and Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82: 407–428.Google Scholar
  14. Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 1–24.Google Scholar
  15. Finkel, Steven, and Geer, John G. (1998). A spot check. American Journal of Political Science 42: 573–595.Google Scholar
  16. Freedman, Paul, and Goldstein, Kenneth (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science 43: 1189–1208.Google Scholar
  17. Garand, James C., and Graddy, Kristy L. (2001). Explaining the mediated effects of negative campaign advertising on voter turnout. Paper delivered at the 2001 Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Geer, John G. (2000). Assessing attack advertising: a silver lining. In Larry M. Bartels and Lynn Vavreck (eds.), Campaign Reform, pp. 62–78. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  19. Geer, John G., and Lau, Richard R. (2001). Simulation and theory: a new way to model the effects of campaigns. unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, R. J. (1974). Memory and comprehension of implications and inferences of complex sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13: 626–637.Google Scholar
  21. Herrnson, Paul (2000). Congressional Elections, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hitchon, Jacqueline C., and Chang, Chingching (1995). Effects of gender schematic processing on the reception of political commercials for men and women candidates. Communication Research 22: 430–458.Google Scholar
  23. Humbert, Marc (2002). McCall stresses black roots in new radio ad. AP wire services, August 9.Google Scholar
  24. Humphrey, Tom (2002). Alexander radio ads tout conservative side. Knoxville News-Sentinel. March 27, b3.Google Scholar
  25. Iyengar, Shanto, and McGuire, William J. (1993). Explorations in Political Psychology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jacobson, Gary C. (2000). The Politics of Congressional Elections, 5th edition. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (2000). Everything You Think You Know about Politics ⋯ And Why You are Wrong. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Kahn, Kim F., and Kenney, Patrick J. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? American Political Science Review 93: 877–890.Google Scholar
  29. Kuklinski, James H. (2002). Thinking about Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kuklinski, James H., and Hurley, Norman L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: a cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. The Journal of Politics 56: 729–751.Google Scholar
  31. Kuklinski, James H., Luskin, Robert C., and Bolland, John (1991). Where is the schema? Going beyond the "S" word in political psychology. The American Political Science Review, 85: 1341–1356.Google Scholar
  32. Lang, A., Newhagen, J., and Reeves, B. (1996). Negative video as structure: emotion, attention, capacity, and memory. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 40: 460–477.Google Scholar
  33. Lau, Richard R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science 29: 119–138.Google Scholar
  34. Lau, Richard, and Pomper, Gerald M. (2001). Effects of negative campaigning on turnout in U.S. senate elections, 1988–1998. Journal of Politics 63: 804–819.Google Scholar
  35. Lau, Richard R., and Sears, David O. (1986). Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Lau, Richard R., and Sigelman, Lee (2000). Effectiveness of negative political advertisements. In James A. Thurber, Candice J. Nelson, and David A. Dulio (eds.), Crowded Air Waves, pp. 17–29. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
  37. Lau, Richard, Sigelman, Lee, Heldman, Caroline, and Babbit, Paul (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: a meta analysis. American Political Science Review 93: 851–876.Google Scholar
  38. Lawton, L. Dale, and Freedman, Paul (2001). Beyond negativity: advertising effects in the 2000 Virginia senate race. Paper delivered at the 2001 Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  39. Lodge, Milton, and Hamill, Ruth (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review 80: 505–519.Google Scholar
  40. Lodge, Milton, and McGraw, Kathleen (1995). Political Judgment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  41. Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen, Stroh, and Patrick (1989). Impressive driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 83: 399–419.Google Scholar
  42. Lodge, Milton, Steenbergen, Marco R., and Brau, Shawn (1995). The responsive voter: campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 82: 309–326.Google Scholar
  43. Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated politcal reasoning. In Arthur Lupia, Mathew McCubbins and Samuel Popkin, (eds.), Elements of Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist 48: 515–537.Google Scholar
  45. Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Loftus, Elizabeth F., and Read, J. D. (1994). Psychotherapy and memories of childhood sexual abuse: A cognitive perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology 8: 281– 338.Google Scholar
  47. Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew, and Popkin, Samuel (2000). Elements of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Massaro, Dominic W., and Cowan, Nelson (1993). Information processing models: microscopes of the mind. In Lyman Porter, and Mark R. Rosenzweig, (eds.), The Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 44. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Matlin, Margaret (2002). Cognition, 5th edition. New York: International Thomson Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. McGraw, Kathleen, and Lodge, Milton (1996). Review essay: political information processing. Political Communication 13: 131–138.Google Scholar
  51. McGraw, Kathleen, Lodge, Milton, and Jones, Jeffery (2001). The pandering politicians of suspicious minds. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  52. Miller, George (1956). Human memory and the storage of information. IRE Transactions on Information Theory IT-2, 129–137.Google Scholar
  53. Newhagen, J., and Reeves, B. (1992). The evening's bad news: effects of compelling negative television news images on memory. Journal of Communication 42: 25–41.Google Scholar
  54. Price, Vincent, and Zaller, John (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly 57: 133–164.Google Scholar
  55. Pritchert, James. W., and Anderson, Richard. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology 69: 309–315.Google Scholar
  56. Rau, Jordan (2002). First ad hits the airways. Newsday, May 21st, a21.Google Scholar
  57. Reeves, B., Newhagen, J., Maibach, E., Basil, M., and Kurz, K. (1991). Negative and positive television messages: effects of message type and context on attention and memory. American Behavioral Scientist 34: 679–694.Google Scholar
  58. Riker, William (1996). Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Robison, Clay (2002). Cornyn promises in ad to fight for water rights. The Houston Chronicle, April 26th, p.42.Google Scholar
  60. Roediger, Henry L. (1996). Memory illusions. Journal of Memory and Language 35: 76–100.Google Scholar
  61. Schulberg, Pete (1996). Radio Advertising: The Authoritative Handbook, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Schvaneveldt, Roger W. (1990). Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge Organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
  63. Shapiro, Michael A., and Rieger, Robert H. (1992). Comparing positive and negative political advertising on radio. Journalism Quarterly 69: 135–145.Google Scholar
  64. Solso, Robert L. (2001). Cognitive Psychology, 6th edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  65. Valentino, Nicholas (1999). Crime news and the priming of racial attitudes during evaluations of the president. Public Opinion Quarterly 63: 293–320.Google Scholar
  66. West, Darrell (2001). Air Wars, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John G. Geer
    • 1
  • James H. Geer
    • 2
  1. 1.Princeton UniversityPrinceton
  2. 2.Louisiana State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations