Media & Elections I

Political campaigns advertise to target audiences using varying forms of media. Among them, television advertising has been considered a staple strategy for reaching voters and influencing their decisions. However, current research has raised questions about the effectiveness of political ads in swaying voter opinions and behavior. Research finds that persuasive effects are difficult to measure and prove homogenous, and the longevity of its effects is also minimal.

Nick Corasaniti's article in The New York Times titled "Do Political Ads Even Matter Anymore?" sets the stage by highlighting the growing skepticism surrounding the impact of political ads in modern election campaigns. Positing that because political ads oversaturate media, they pose to become ineffectual.  Alan S. Gerber, James G. Gimpel, Donald P. Green, and Daron R. Shaw, explore the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads. The researchers conducted a randomized field experiment to measure the size and duration of these effects. Their findings suggest that the impact of political ads is powerful but short-lived (p.149). 

Likewise, Richard R. Lau and Ivy Brown Rovner contribute to the discourse with their examination of negative campaigning in their article in the Annual Review of Political Science. Negative advertising, a common tactic employed in political ads, is scrutinized for its effectiveness in shaping voter perceptions and behavior. Lau and Rovner's analysis finds that negative campaigning has minimal effects on persuading voters away from their candidate choice. However, they call into question its ethics within a democratic society. 

A more recent study by John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and Christopher Warshaw, published in the American Political Science Review, further explores the effect of television advertising on elections in the United States. By examining data from recent campaigns, the researchers provide insights into the nuanced relationship between political ads and voter behavior. They find that "television advertising affects election results across all levels of office"(p.715). That even though partisanship is increasing in the electorate there is still a large group of voters who are persuadable through campaign ads. Especially in down-ballot elections. 

Alexander Coppock, Seth Hill, and Lynn Vavreck posit in their article on the small effects of political advertising that such advertising has minimal persuasive effect on voters. Despite the expense and "careful consideration" required for targeting specific audiences with political ads, the effects often prove to be minimal. Coppock also suggests that measuring persuasion effectiveness is challenging due to the specific mix of conditions necessary for persuasion, which may vary in intensity depending on the situation. This difficulty in measurement stems from research design constraints, which prevent every condition of persuasion from being accurately and repeatedly measured, leading to inconsistent results. To demonstrate the heterogeneity of persuasive effects, one would need "fine control over the many features presumed to cause heterogeneity" (p.5).

Given all this, we can conclude that there is still much work to be done in the study of political ads and their effects. The effects of political ads on candidate favorability and vote choice do not appear to depend solely on characteristics like partisanship, advertisement tone, or target audience as constants. I would propose that this branch of political science and inquiry shift its focus to studying emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and intellectual moderators for persuasive effects, among others.

While television ads remain a ubiquitous feature of political communication, their actual impact on voter behavior may be more limited than commonly assumed. As campaigns evolve and new communication technologies emerge, it becomes increasingly important for researchers, practitioners, and voters alike to critically evaluate the efficacy of political advertising in shaping democratic outcomes.