Memo to every politician in Greater Cincinnati...

Oct. 10, 2006

‘Nice and Slow’;
Political Attack Ads Are Less Effective than Slow-Paced, Non-Attack Ads

COLUMBIA, Mo. – At the height of election season, candidates often campaign with advertisements that attack their opponents, criticizing weaknesses and mistakes. Such ads are widely criticized, but they continue to be popular, partially because some studies have indicated they are effective. A new study from the University of Missouri-Columbia has found the opposite: non-attack ads are more effective than attack ads.

“According to the results of this study, non-attack, slow-paced televised political ads are the most attention grabbing and memorable,” said Paul D. Bolls, assistant professor of advertising in MU’s School of Journalism. “These results contradict findings from previous research. This study indicates that candidates do not necessarily need to go on the attack to get their message attended to and remembered.”

Bolls and Katherine C. Roehrick, an MU undergraduate researcher, studied the physiological responses of 31 viewers while the viewers watched a series of 30-second political ads about unfamiliar candidates. The ads were classified in four different ways: non-attack/fast-paced, non-attack/slow-paced, attack/fast-paced and attack/slow-paced. Fast-paced ads had eight or more camera cuts or edits, while slow-paced ads had no more than four. Bolls and Roehrick measured viewers’ heart rates and determined that they paid the most attention to slow-paced, non-attack ads.

“Most of the slow-paced, non-attack ads involved a candidate talking to the camera, directly addressing the viewer,” Bolls said. “Researchers have found that as television actors appear closer to viewers, attention increases and memory improves. A similar effect could have occurred in our study.”

Each participant also was given a memory test after viewing the ads: they listened to audio clips and were asked to indicate whether they remembered having heard the clip as part of the series of televised ads they had just seen. Again, responses indicated that slow-paced, non-attack ads were the most effective. Participants remembered audio clips from the non-attack ads better than from the attack ads, regardless of whether the attack ads were fast or slow paced.

“Non-attack, slow-paced ads had the best audio recognition,” Bolls said. “Researchers have observed how attack ads appear to lead to negative attitudes toward politics in general, increasing political negativity and voter alienation. We’ve found that under some conditions, ‘nice and slow’ can be an effective way to communicate with potential voters.”

The study was presented at the International Communication Association conference in Dresden, Germany, in June and is currently under review at the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. The study was supported by MU’s Office of Undergraduate Research.

-30-