*

*
Politics Extra
Enquirer reporters give the scoop on what your politicians are doing


Jessica Brown,
Hamilton County reporter


Jon Craig,
Enquirer statehouse bureau


Jane Prendergast,
Cincinnati City Hall reporter


Malia Rulon,
Enquirer Washington bureau


Carl Weiser,
Blog editor


Howard Wilkinson,
politics reporter

Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

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-


3 Comments:

at 5:58 PM, October 10, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is another sign pointing toward a smashing John Cranley victory. Chabot runs negative ads. Cranley does not. Yet another reason Cranley is going to win.

Just wait till Cranley starts exposing Chabothead's atrocious record on foster care when he was a commissioner. Marcus Feisel would be alive if Steve Chabot had never been elected commissioner.

 
at 8:27 PM, October 10, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to Mean Jean "Negative Ads Work". She stated this in the Community Journal in August 2006.

 
at 10:35 PM, October 10, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

GOP Senator Mike DeWine's campaign is refusing to say whether a soldier appearing in one of the campaign's political ads is an actor or a real member of the military. The ad — which ran roughly in the last week of September and the first week of October and is right here — pictures family members of soldiers praising DeWine. For about three seconds, what appears to be an actual soldier is visible in uniform. But Defense Department spokesperson Stewart Upton has now told Election Central that "all military personnel…are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign or election events." Upton viewed the ad, and said that he'd "forwarded this matter over to the Army for review."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck