Political Advertising in the 2004 Election: Comparison of Traditional Television and Internet Messages

http://abs.sagepub.com/American Behavioral Scientist

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0002764205279421

2005 49: 265American Behavioral ScientistLynda Lee Kaid and Monica Postelnicu

Political Advertising in the 2004 Election: Comparison of Traditional Television and Internet Messages

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 20, 2005Version of Record >>

at National Dong Hwa University on March 28, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from at National Dong Hwa University on March 28, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://abs.sagepub.com/


http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265



http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265.refs.html

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265.refs.html

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265.full.pdf

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/265.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





10.1177/0002764205279421ARTICLEAmerican Behavioral ScientistKaid, Postelnicu / Political Advertising

Political Advertisingin the 2004 ElectionComparison of TraditionalTelevision and Internet Messages

Lynda Lee KaidMonica PostelnicuUniversity of Florida

Although television advertising remained a dominant form of communication in the2004 presidential election, the Internet reached new levels of campaign importance, pro-viding voters with information from candidates, the media, and independent sources.Internet sites not only provided online viewing of traditional television advertising butalso provided voters with the opportunity to seek out additional information about tele-vision ads viewed on the Web. Drawing on theory and research related to channel vari-ables, this study compared the reactions of young voters who experienced candidateadvertising on television or on the Web. Results indicate that the channel really doesmake a difference. John Kerry’s ads were more successful in raising his image and learn-ing scores when viewed on the Web with access to additional information sources. How-ever, television viewing reduced feelings of political cynicism and alienation for youngvoters.

Keywords: political information; political media; campaigns

The 2004 presidential election pushed the use of the Internet as a tool of politicalcommunication to new standards. The candidates’ campaign Web sites became a

very visible part of the campaign communication and were used for a wide variety ofpurposes such as fund-raising, volunteer mobilization, direct communication with theelectorate, media relationships, replies and attacks against the opponent, and displaysof endorsements, to name just a few. During the elections, the campaign Web sites ofboth candidates turned into huge collections of messages produced by the campaign inan effort to communicate with their numerous publics. Even traditional messages suchas television advertising, press releases, fliers, posters, brochures, and even bumper

265

Part II, Political Advertisingin the General Campaign

American Behavioral ScientistVolume 49 Number 2

October 2005 265-278© 2005 Sage Publications

10.1177/0002764205279421http://abs.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the National Communication AssociationConvention, Chicago, November, 2004.

at National Dong Hwa University on March 28, 2014abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from



stickers were converted to a digital format and made available to supporters througheach candidate’s Web site. From the simple, unsophisticated, and text-based campaignsites of the mid-1990s, modern political Web sites offer a rich mix of multimediamessages designed to market the candidate and reach the voters.

The results of the Pew survey on the 2004 presidential election confirmed that can-didates are right to invest in their online presence, with 41% of the voters saying thatthey got some of their news about the campaign from the Internet (The Pew ResearchCenter, 2004). The Web was the main source of political information for 21% of allvoters, a dramatic increase from 11% in 2000. And although television news remainsthe most prominent source of campaign information overall, the younger generationof voters clearly prefers the Web over the TV set. In 2004, 60% of voters younger thanage 30 pointed to the Internet as a source of campaign news, and 40% said this wastheir main source (The Pew Research Center, 2004). Young citizens appear to haveabandoned mainstream media in favor of the Internet, comedy shows, campaign news,and other alternative information sources.

The candidates’campaign Web sites garnered a great deal of attention. Each site re-ceived about 1.5 million visitors on average during each campaign month (Festa,2004), and the traffic skyrocketed to 3.7 million visitors for Kerry and 3.2 million visi-tors for Bush in October 2004 (comScore Media Metrix, 2004). Overall, the numberof visitors to the candidates’ Web sites during this presidential election was doublecompared to the 2000 election (Politics Online, 2004). In the last month of the 2004campaign alone, the number of visitors to political Web sites in general was 25 million(comScore Media Metrix, 2004). These figures speak for themselves about the impactof Internet communication on political races.

Drawing on theory and previous research on channel variables, our present studyraises questions about how the new medium affects voters’ attitude and perception ofthe candidates and of the political process in general. Two groups of undergraduatestudents were exposed to the same political advertising messages either on televisionor the Internet, in an attempt to compare differences in viewers’ perceptions of onlineand television messages.

Political Advertising and Channel Variables

Since Marshall McLuhan (1964) advocated for the importance of channel vari-ables in his famous “the medium is the message” (p. 7) conceptualization, researchershave been intrigued by the notion that the channel through which someone is exposedto a message could play an important role in how that message comes to have meaningin the receiver’s mind. This possibility that a channel can make a difference in theaudience’s interpretations seemed to be confirmed by the fact that people who sawthe 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate on television declared Kennedy the winner, whereaspeople who only listened to the debate on the radio gave the victory to Nixon (Katz &Feldman, 1962). Although Vancil and Pendell (1987) have questioned the interpre-tation of this original 1960 study, other research has confirmed that the mediumthrough which a message is delivered in a political campaign can affect the audience’s

266 American Behavioral Scientist




responses (Andreoli & Worchel, 1978; Cohen, 1976; McKinnon, Tedesco, & Kaid,1993).

The limited research comparing the effects of political messages through tradi-tional channels such as television with the newer Internet medium has reached some-what contradictory results. A few studies suggest that we might expect the Internet toresult in positive effects on voters. For example, viewing Web sites had a beneficialeffect on liking for candidates (Hansen, 2000; Hansen & Benoit, 2002). McKinneyand Gaddie (2000) exposed a group of participants to a 2000 presidential primarydebate in a traditional television format and another group to the same debate in anInternet format and found that the Internet was a superior channel to traditional televi-sion in terms of issue learning from the debate. Jacques and Ratzan (1997) reached thesame conclusion and observed that voters watching the 1996 debates on the Internettook advantage of links to pursue additional information. However, Johnson, Braima,and Sothirajah (1999) found very little effect on candidate image or issue learningafter exposure to candidate Web sites in 1996.

Different information-seeking behaviors resulting from television advertising ex-posure may be related to levels of voter interest and political involvement. Valentino,Hutchings, and Williams (2004) found that exposure to political advertising reducedinformation seeking among voters with high political involvement. After viewingpolitical ads, voters with higher campaign interest and involvement browsed the Webfor additional information less than voters who had low involvement scores.

In a study more directly related to the research here, Kaid (2003) found that dif-ferences in response to candidate advertising varied by whether exposure came as aresult of traditional television advertising or the Internet, concluding that “differencesbetween Internet and traditional television exposure are much stronger than any dif-ferences between formats of the messages” (p. 683). Voters exposed to an Internetmessage gave a higher evaluation of the candidates than voters exposed to the samemessage in a television format. Kaid (2002) also found that such channels’differencescould relate directly to voting choices between candidates.

Political Cynicism

Media are often blamed for the low levels of political trust in government, whichmay lead to less motivation for voters to seek information about the candidates or evento vote (Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco, 2000). Women and young voters in particularexhibit elevated levels of political mistrust (Bennett, 1997; Pearlstein, 1996). Theemphasis by the news media on campaign strategy may “activate audience cynicism inboth print and broadcast media” (Capella & Jamieson, 1996, p. 76). In addition, cri-tiques of political ads by the media can predetermine voters to perceive the claims inthe ads as suspect, leading to more audience cynicism toward candidates.

Negative television advertising also has been identified as a likely culprit for theincreased levels of political cynicism and low turnout of the American elector-ate. Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) charged negative advertising with specific re-ductions in voter turnout levels. Kaid et al. (2000) found that voters exposed to 1996

Kaid, Postelnicu / Political Advertising 267




presidential television ads, both positive and negative, experienced more politicalcynicism after exposure than before.

Although many other studies have not confirmed this pessimistic view of negativeadvertising (Garramone, Atkin, Pinkleton, & Cole, 1990; Kaid, 2002), the notion per-sists that campaign advertising has adverse effects on voter involvement, perhapsbecause so many voters and media are quick to decry its effects.

With television advertising receiving such negative press, it is not surprising thatpolitical observers have seen the Internet as a medium that might help to reengageyoung voters. Delli Carpini (2000), for instance, suggests that new technologies suchas the Internet may stimulate interest and involvement in young voters, providingmore opportunities for young adults to participate and to get needed information. Theonline environment is nurturing of political discussion free from the social norms thatinhibit political talk in offline situations and facilitates interaction of people withdiverse background and opinions (Stromer-Galley, 2003).

In a test of the relationship between different forms of media and the level of politi-cal cynicism, Tedesco and Kaid (2000) determined that young voters became less cyn-ical after they were exposed to content from the 2000 presidential candidates’ Websites. Exposure to the Internet political advertising, however, did not lower the cyni-cism level (Kaid, 2002).

A lessening of political cynicism after exposure to candidates’ Web sites was alsoobserved by Corrado and Firestone (1996) and Milbank (1999), who praised theInternet for its ability to enhance voter involvement. Other scholars have expressedoptimism that the Internet will empower the formation of communities of like-mindedcitizens who will share information and become better informed voters (Keane, 1995;Sullivan, 1995). It is only fair to note, however, that not all researchers have foundsuch optimistic outcomes. For instance, in a telephone survey in New York, Scheufeleand Nisbet (2001) found that Internet use showed less significant relationships topolitical efficacy, political knowledge, or participation in political forums/discussionsthan did traditional media.

Political Information Efficacy and Young Voters

Although traditional views of political cynicism and efficacy may be importantdeterminants of political participation for young citizens, another aspect of youngvoter involvement may be related to their low levels of political information andknowledge. For instance, the Third Millennium study of young voters’motivations forvoting and nonvoting suggested that young people often give their lack of informationas a reason for not voting (Murphy, 2000), a link also confirmed by studies of citizenengagement in 1996 and 2000 campaigns (Kaid et al., 2000). Kaid, Tedesco, andMcKinney (2004) have called this lack of confidence in the knowledge necessary toparticipate in politics information efficacy, defined as the extent to which one is confi-dent in his or her political knowledge and that one possesses sufficient knowledge toengage in the political process (e.g., to vote).





Use of the Internet for acquisition of political information may provide young vot-ers with opportunities to enhance their information levels, leading to higher levels ofinformation efficacy. Using National Election Studies data from 1996 and 2000,Tolbert and McNeal (2001) determined that access to the Internet and usage of it forpolitical information increased voting turnout by as much as 20% among all voters,even when controlling for socioeconomic factors.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Drawing from the previous research above on exposure to television and Internetadvertising and possible relationships to political cynicism and information efficacyamong young voters, this research posited the following hypotheses and researchquestions:

Hypothesis 1: Young voters who view political advertising on the Internet will become sig-nificantly more positive toward the candidates than those who view political advertisingon the television medium.

Hypothesis 2: Exposure to political advertising on the Internet will reduce the political cyni-cism levels of young voters significantly more than exposure to political advertising ontelevision.

Hypothesis 3: Young voters who are exposed to political advertising on the Internet willlearn significantly more about campaign issues than will those who are exposed to politi-cal advertising on television.

Hypothesis 4: Exposure to political advertising on the Internet will significantly increase thefeelings of political information efficacy for young voters compared to exposure ontelevision.

Research Question 1: Will exposure to political advertising on the Internet versus televisionhave a significant impact on the evaluation of the political ads to which they are exposed?

Method

An experimental procedure was used to test the hypotheses. Using a series of tele-vision spots from the 2004 presidential campaign, two groups were exposed to thesame ads for John Kerry and George Bush in either a traditional television setting or anInternet setting.

Sample

The respondents were 53 undergraduate students at a large southeastern university.The students were recruited from undergraduate communication classes and wereallowed to sign up for either of the two exposure groups at random. In all, 23 respon-dents were exposed to the political advertisements on television, and 31 respondentswatched the ads in an Internet laboratory. The total sample consisted of 22 men (41%)





and 32 women (59%) and had a mean age of 20.4 years. The partisan affiliations of thegroup were 50% Democrat, 35% Republican, and 15% independent or other. Furtherexamination of these demographic characteristics indicated that there were no signifi-cant differences between the two exposure groups in terms of age, gender, or partisanaffiliation.

Procedure

The television group watched the selection of 10 presidential spots for John Kerryand George W. Bush1 on a television set in a viewing room in the university’s studentunion. The respondents filled out a pretest questionnaire before the viewing began andthen filled out a posttest questionnaire following the exposure. The experiments tookplace October 25 to 28, 2004, just prior to the November 2 election.

The Internet group filled out the same pretest and posttest questionnaires. How-ever, instead of viewing the Bush and Kerry spots in a traditional television viewingsituation, these students were seated at computer terminals and were given URL loca-tions for accessing the same spots directly on the candidates’ Web sites. After expo-sure to each spot, students were directed to pages within the candidates’ Web sites,which contained the ad script and provided information to support the statements inthe ad. Students were also asked to read information about the ad on a nonpartisanWeb site, FactCheck.org, that did a sentence-by-sentence verification of the state-ments made by the candidates in the spots and supplied visitors with evidence onwhether those statements were true or false.

This procedure was used to maximize the difference between television andInternet exposure and to take advantage of the differences in information seeking andacquisition provided by the World Wide Web, making the experimental comparisonsas much like real television and real Internet exposure as possible.

Measuring Instrument

The pretest and posttest questionnaires contained measures of political cynicism,including a series of items adapted from the National Election Studies (Rosenstone,Kinder, Miller, & the National Election Studies, 1997) and other similar measures.This particular eight-item scale has been used by other researchers (Kaid et al., 2000)and has achieved acceptable reliability levels, as it did in this project, whereCronbach’s alpha levels for reliability were +.74 in the pretest and +.82 in the posttest.The cynicism scale was a summation of eight items used to determine the level of trustor confidence in government,2 and respondents were asked to agree-disagree on a 5-point scale.

The questionnaires also contained a pretest and posttest measure to evaluate thepresidential candidates. These evaluations of Bush and Kerry were measured by a“feeling thermometer” scale used by the National Election Studies to measure candi-date favorability (Rosenstone et al., 1997). The thermometer asks the respondent toplace each candidate on a scale from 0 (cool) to 100 (warm).





Additional 5-point scales were used to assess the respondents’ confidence in theirinformation efficacy and their degree of learning about issues from each candidate’sspots. Respondents also evaluated the credibility, validity, and usefulness of the spots.Voting intentions also were measured in both pretest and posttest questionnaires.

Results

The results indicate that there are, in fact, differences in how young people respondto the same political advertising messages on traditional television versus the Internet.The analysis of results was divided into sections that correspond to the initial hypothe-ses and research questions.

Evaluation of Candidates

The first hypothesis predicted that young voters who viewed the political spots onthe Internet would evaluate the candidates significantly higher than those who viewedthe candidates on the traditional television medium. Examination of these results,using the feeling thermometer to rate candidates from 0 to 100, suggests that thishypothesis is true only for John Kerry. Table 1 shows that the television exposure to theads did not result in any changes in candidate evaluation for either candidate. How-ever, the Internet exposure prompted significant changes for both candidates, but onlyKerry’s change was in a positive direction. After the Internet exposure, young citizensrated Kerry at 59.1 on the thermometer scale (range from 0-100), significantly higherthan their pretest evaluation of 56.3, t(df = 30) = –2.53, p = .01.


Table 1Effects of Exposure to Television Versus Internet Political Advertising

Traditional TV (n = 23) Internet (n = 31)

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Candidate evaluationa

Bush 38.4 38.6 43.8 41.5*Kerry 51.4 52.4 56.3 59.1*Political cynicismb 24.6 22.7* 24.6 23.4

Information efficacyc

Better informed 3.57 3.43 3.84 3.77Good understanding of issues 4.04 4.04 4.19 4.10

a. Candidate evaluation was measured on the feeling thermometer with scores from 0 to 100.b. Political cynicism scales were summed across the eight items with resulting score possibilities from 8to 40; thus, the higher the score, the more cynical the respondent is.c. The items in this category represent mean scores of agreement (5) to disagreement (1) on each item.*t test indicates that the difference in the pretest and posttest within the medium (TV or Internet) is signifi-cant at p ≤ .01.




The Internet exposure to George Bush’s ads resulted in a more negative evaluation.As Table 1 indicates, Bush’s pretest score declined significantly from 43.8 to 41.5,t(df = 30) = 2.47, p = .01.

Political Cynicism

Cynicism was measured by summing the eight items of the political cynicism scale,and these results are also shown in Table 1. Here the results were exactly the oppositeof those predicted by the second hypothesis, which suggested that exposure to the adson the Internet would reduce cynicism levels. In fact, as Table 1 indicates, there was nochange in political cynicism levels for those in the Internet-viewing group. However,those who were exposed to the ads on television became significantly less cynical,showing a decline from a mean score of 24.6 to 22.7, t(df = 22) = 4.49, p = .001.

Issue Learning

The third hypothesis predicted that young citizens exposed to the Internet versionof the ads would learn more about the issues stressed in the candidates’ campaigns.This hypothesis also had mixed results because it was confirmed for Kerry but not forBush.

Table 2 reports the results of tests that show that there was no difference betweenthe two formats in perceived issue learning for Bush. However, perceived issue learn-ing for Kerry climbed significantly from 3.30 for television viewers to 4.68 for theInternet, t(df = 52) = –3.02, p = .01.

Information Efficacy

Table 1 illustrates the result for testing of the last hypothesis, which suggested thatthe Internet exposure would result in young citizens having higher levels of informa-tion efficacy. Information efficacy was measured here with two items: the extent to


Table 2Effects of Television and Internet Political Advertising on

Learning and Spot Evaluation

Traditional TV (n = 23) Internet (n = 31)

Issue learningBush 2.96 3.42Kerry 3.30 4.68*

Spot evaluationWere credible 2.96 2.29*Question the validity of claims in ads 3.87 4.28Feel more confident in voting choice 3.35 3.77Helped sort out the truth and falsity 2.95 4.32*

*t test indicates that the difference between TV and Internet exposure is significant at p ≤ .01.




which the young voters felt they were “better informed than most people about theelection” and the extent to which they felt they did not “have a good understanding ofthe issues.” These data show that there were no significant differences in informationefficacy between the pretest and posttest for young citizens in either the Internet or thetraditional television-viewing groups.

Political Spot Evaluation

The research question asked what aspects of evaluation of the political spot itselfmight be affected by exposure to the Internet or television messages. Table 2 providesevidence of some effects related to spot evaluations. For instance, those who saw thespots on the Internet found them significantly less credible. On a scale of 1 to 5, view-ers in the Internet-viewing group gave Kerry’s ads a credibility rating of only 2.29,significantly lower than the 2.96 credibility rating given to the television version,t(df = 52) = 2.10, p = .05. Exposure on neither medium (TV vs. Internet) resulted indifferences in questioning the validity of the claims made in the ads nor in feelingmore confident about voting choices. However, the exposure to the Internet was veryhelpful in “sorting out the truth and falsity of the ads,” t(df = 52) = –5.61, p = .001.

Discussion

This study exposed college voters to the same content, with one group viewing atelevision format and another group an Internet version of it. The results suggest thatthe channel of communication has a strong impact on how the audience interprets themessage and builds its perception of political candidates.

Exposure to the candidates’ spots on the Internet resulted in an attitude changetoward the candidates. It is not clear why respondents rated Kerry higher and Bushlower on the thermometer scale in the Internet group, but it could be an effect of thetype of information provided by each candidate in addition to their spots. The informa-tion on Bush’s site was excessively negative, aimed at attacking Kerry. On the otherhand, the information supplied by Kerry was mostly positive and often educationaland explanatory. To illustrate, here is an example of the type of evidence that the can-didates used as support for the statements in their spots:

• Bush, in his “Risk” ad, stated that “John Kerry and his liberal allies. . . . Are they a risk wecan afford to take today?” The evidence given to support this statement was the follow-ing: “Senators Kerry and Edwards Are Two of Only Four U.S. Senators Who Voted forthe Use of Force Resolution Against Iraq and Against the $87 Billion Supplemental Sup-porting Our Troops. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1,10/11/02, Kerry and Edwards Voted Yea; S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0;D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry and Edwards Voted Nay; Other Senators Include Sens.Fritz Hollings [D-SC] and Tom Harkin [D-IA]).”

• Kerry, in his “Protect” ad, stated that “to make America safer, we can no longer go it alonein the world.” To back up this statement, Kerry’s Web site told the reader that “American





Troops Have Borne 90 Percent of Total Casualties in the Iraq War. There have been 1,108American casualties and 138 non-American casualties in Iraq since the beginning of thewar. American troops have borne almost 90 percent of the casualties [CNN.com, SpecialReports: Iraq Casualties, 10/22/04].”

The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org that students visited to verify the factualaccuracy of the spots also concluded that Bush’s ads were more misleading and con-tained more false information than Kerry’s. This could be another one of the causesthat determined a low rating of Bush by participants after they had been exposed to theInternet spots and the accompanying FactCheck.org information. Regardless of whichgroup the respondents were in, more than two thirds of the respondents said that theyfind information from candidates’Web sites and from news and nonpartisan Web sitesto be very or somewhat useful. If the assumption that online nonpartisan, third-partyinformation sources can influence voters’perception of the candidates is confirmed byfuture research, then we may see important changes in the way the Internet is used inpolitical races.

Young voters may continue to be particularly susceptible to influence from Internetsources. The respondents in this study reported that they spent more than 3 hours perday on the Internet, and they specifically reported spending more than 40 minutes perday searching for political information on the Web. In comparison, they read a news-paper fewer than 4 days in a week, and they watched national and local news onlyabout three times in a week. The availability of political information on the Web andthe way in which it is used and accessed by young voters must be a continued concernin understanding how to motivate and engage this critical group of citizens.

Contrary to what many researchers have expected, the Internet failed to lower thelevel of political cynicism among voters in this study. Respondents exposed to Internetcontent manifested the same level of cynicism as they did prior to the exposure. Sur-prisingly, respondents who saw the political spots on television became less cynicalafter exposure. Perhaps the Internet’s ability to provide users with additional infor-mation about the ads, often with opposing points of view, discouraged young votersand made them skeptical of their role in the political system. In addition, this studyexposed participants to information similar to adwatches, and research has shown thatadwatches are successful in making people question the accuracy of the ads’ claimsbut also cause them to distrust the sponsor of the adwatch (McKinnon, 1995).

Exposure to political advertising, either on television or on the Internet, did notincrease young voters’ trust in their political knowledge, but participants exposed toInternet information admitted that they learned more about the campaign than the peo-ple exposed to the television format, at least for Kerry’s ads. This finding supports theconclusion of a Pew Research Center survey that indicated that people who turn to theInternet for campaign news are the most knowledgeable about the campaign (The PewResearch Center, 2003). It appears that the Internet can enhance voters’ knowledgeabout the candidates and the issues, mostly because online users show an active inter-est in that type of information and go online specifically for the purpose of learningabout the campaign. The fact that television exposure failed to produce a learning out-





come is also consistent with the fact that young people are paying less attention to tra-ditional media in favor of alternative sources of information such as the Internet orcomedy TV shows.

However, candidates are better off with television if they want viewers to perceivetheir ads as credible. The finding about lower credibility for the ads on the Internetthan on traditional television is surprising because research has shown that those whouse online sources tend to judge online information as more credible than othersources of traditional media information (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000; Johnson &Kaye, 1998).

The Internet searching made the ads less credible but did have the positive effect ofmaking young citizens feel that they were able to sort out the truth. However, viewerswere less likely to feel more efficacious or empowered because political cynicism wasdecreased only in the television cell. This latter finding is somewhat counter to predic-tions of those who think the Internet will make people more empowered and moreconfident that they can affect the political system. Citizens who go online for politicalpurposes may be the same people who are already active, and thus the Internet doesnot enhance involvement and interest in the political process but only reinforces thisfeeling in those who already have it (Hacker, 1996). In fact, a study of the effects ofcomputer-mediated communication on political behavior concluded that this newtechnology tends to increase the gap between politically active and politically inactivecitizens (Garramone, Harris, & Pizante, 1986).

Our hypotheses about the Internet resulting in a more positive attitude toward thecandidate and an increased knowledge level among voters were confirmed only forKerry’s spots. The fact that one candidate seems to do better in one medium thananother—Kerry does better on Internet than on television—is in line with findings byCohen (1976) and Kaid (2002) that a candidate may interact with a channel, such thatsome candidates are better on one medium than another, which is, of course,McLuhan’s (1964) point as well. Kaid tested channel differences using political ads ofBush and Gore from the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign and established that Bush’smessages were more effective on television than on the Internet.

Despite its limitations, this study supports previous research on channel variablesand raises questions for future analysis. An experimental study by Salomon (1990)suggested that use of computers for communication activities can alter young users’perceptions of others and of reality in the same way print, radio, and television had animpact on our lifestyles and the way we experience the world. Communication schol-ars need to concentrate their efforts on identifying the effects of political Internetcommunication on the age group most exposed to this channel, young adults. Doescomputer-mediated communication lead to increased learning, as discovered by thisstudy in Kerry’s case? Are the cognitive effects of the Internet stable or only tempo-rary? Is the Internet more likely to engage citizens and decrease their levels of politicalcynicism through interactivity and feedback, or will the overwhelming amount ofonline information result in even more mistrust among voters? As the Internet contin-ues to compete with other mass media for the attention and influence of citizens in allaspects of the political system, these questions will become even more important.





Notes

1. The spots used for this study, in the order in which were shown, are as follows: (1) negative Bush adtitled “Risk,” attacking Kerry for voting against wars and the weapons budget in Congress; (2) positive Kerryad titled “Protect” on foreign policy; (3) negative Bush spot titled “Wolves,” attacking Kerry for votingagainst the reduction of the intelligence budget; (4) negative Kerry ad called “Wrong Choices,” attackingBush for spending $200 billion in Iraq instead of investing it into the economy and health care; (5) negativeBush spot called “Clockwork,” attacking Kerry’s record on the economy; (6) comparative Kerry ad, “TheTruth on Taxes,” explaining Kerry’s plan for tax cuts for the middle class; (7) negative Bush ad titled “MalMed,” attacking Kerry and the Democrats for voting against the medical lawsuit reform; (8) comparativeKerry spot titled “RX Drugs,” expressing Kerry’s support for Canadian drug imports; (9) negative Bush ad,“Searching,” attacking Kerry on his inconsistent positions regarding the Iraq war; and (10) negative Kerryspot called “Looking,” attacking Bush for having created a “mess” in Iraq.

2. The specific items used in the cynicism scale were as follows: (1) Whether I vote or not has no influ-ence on what politicians do, (2) One never really knows what politicians think, (3) People like me don’t haveany say about what the government does, (4) Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that aperson like me can’t really understand what’s going on, (5) One can be confident that politicians will alwaysdo the right thing (reversed in coding), (6) Politicians often quickly forget their election promises after apolitical campaign is over, (7) Politicians are more interested in power than in what the people think, and (8)One cannot always trust what politicians say.

References

Andreoli, V., & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator and message position on attitudechange. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59-70.

Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How attack ads shrink and polarize the electorate.New York: The Free Press.

Bennett, S. E. (1997). Why young Americans hate politics and what we should do about it. PS, 30(1), 47-53.Capella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism. Annals of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71-84.Cohen, A. (1976). Radio vs. TV: The effects of the medium. Journal of Communication, 26, 29-35.comScore Media Metrix. (2004, November 15). 25 million Americans visited politics sites in the final month

of the presidential race. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=517

Corrado, A., & Firestone, C. C. (Eds.). (1996). Elections in cyberspace: Toward a new era in American poli-tics. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment.Political Communication, 17, 341-349.

Festa, P. (2004, May 18). Bush’s site neck and neck with Kerry’s in traffic race. Retrieved January 20, 2005,from http://news.com.com/Bush’s+site+neck+and+neck+with+Kerry’s+in+traffic+ race/2100-1028_3-5215121.html

Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & MassCommunication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540.

Garramone, G., Atkin, C. K., Pinkleton, B. E., & Cole, R. (1990). Effects of negative political advertising onthe political process. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 299-311.

Garramone, G. M., Harris, A. C., & Pizante, G. (1986). Predictors of motivation to use computer-mediatedpolitical communication systems. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 445-457.

Hacker, K. L. (1996). Missing links in the evolution of electronic democratization. Media, Culture, & Soci-ety, 18(2), 212-232.





Hansen, G. J. (2000, November). Internet presidential campaigning: The influences of candidate Internetsites on the 2000 election. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention,Seattle, WA.

Hansen, G. J., & Benoit, W. L. (2002, November). Presidential campaigning on the Web: The influence ofcandidate World Wide Web sites in the 2000 general election. Paper presented at the National Communi-cation Association Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Jacques, W. W., & Ratzan, S. C. (1997). The Internet’s World Wide Web and political accountability: Newmedia coverage of the 1996 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1226-1237.

Johnson, R. J., Braima, M. A., & Sothirajah, J. (1999). Doing the traditional media sidestep: Comparing theeffects of the Internet and other nontraditional media with traditional media in the 1996 presidentialcampaign. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 99-123.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional sources onmedia credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 325-340.

Kaid, L. L. (2002, Spring). Political advertising and information seeking: Comparing the exposure via tradi-tional and Internet media channels. Journal of Advertising, 31, 27-35.

Kaid, L. L. (2003). Effects of political information in the 2000 presidential campaign: Comparing traditionaltelevision and Internet exposure. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(5), 677-689.

Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M. S., & Tedesco, J. C. (2000). Civic dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign:Candidate, media, and public voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Kaid, L. L., Tedesco, J. C., & McKinney, M. S. (2004, November). Information efficacy and young voters.Paper presented at the National Communication Association Conference, Chicago.

Katz, E., & Feldman, J. (1962). The debates in light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Thegreat debates (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Keane, J. (1995). Structural transformation of the public sphere. The Communication Review, 1, 1-22.McKinney, M. S., & Gaddie, K. C. (2000, November). The medium and the message: TV vs. Internet viewing

of a presidential primary debate. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Conven-tion, Seattle, WA.

McKinnon, L. M. (1995, August). Mediating political mudsliding or magnifying advertising effects:An experimental study of adwatch effects on voters’ evaluations of the candidates and their ads. Paperpresented at the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Conference,Phoenix, AZ.

McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel andcommentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.Milbank, D. (1999, July 5). Virtual politics. The New Republic, pp. 22, 27.Murphy, K. (2000, April 25). Report: Young voters, candidates share blame for apathy. Kansas City Star.

Retrieved January 10, 2004, from http://www.kcstar.com.Pearlstein, S. (1996, January 30). Angry female voters a growing force. Washington Post, p. 1.The Pew Research Center for The People & Press. (2003). Perception of partisan bias seen as growing—

especially by democrats: Cable and Internet loom large in fragmented political news universe.Retrieved February 22, 2004, from http://people- press.org/reports/pdf/200.pdf

The Pew Research Center for The People & Press. (2004). Voters liked campaign 2004 but too much “mud-slinging.” Retrieved November 21, 2004, from http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=233

Politics Online. (2004). Web traffic. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://politicsonline.com/globalcontent/elections/elections2004/webtraffic.asp

Rosenstone, S. J., Kinder, D. R., Miller, W. E., & the National Election Studies. (1997). American nationalelection study, 1996: Pre- and post-election survey. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/datalib/major/us_nes.htm

Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research, 17(1),26-44.

Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. (2001, September). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends.Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Convention, San Francisco.





Stromer-Galley, J. (2003). Diversity of political conversation on the Internet: Users’perspectives. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). Retrieved August 26, 2004, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/index.html

Sullivan, J. F. (1995). Politics, journalism and the Net. Nieman Reports, 49(4), 33-35.Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (2000, November). Candidate Web sites and voter effects: Investigating uses

and gratifications. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention,Seattle, WA.

Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. (2001, September). Does the Internet increase voter participation in elections?Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Convention, San Francisco.

Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & Williams, D. (2004). The impact of political advertising on knowledge,Internet information seeking, and preference. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 337-354.

Vancil, D. L., & Pendell, S. D. (1987). The myth of viewer-listener disagreement in the first Kennedy-Nixondebates. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 16-27.

Lynda Lee Kaid is a professor of telecommunication at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Her researchspecialties include political advertising and news coverage of political events. A Fulbright Scholar, she hasalso done work on political television in several international contexts. She is the author/editor of more than20 books, including The Handbook of Political Communication Research, Millennium Election, Videostylein Presidential Campaigns, The Electronic Election, Civic Dialogue in the 1996 Campaign, New Perspec-tives on Political Advertising, Mediated Politics in Two Cultures, Political Advertising in Western Democra-cies, and Political Campaign Communication: A Bibliography and Guide to the Literature. She has alsowritten more than 100 journal articles and book chapters on various aspects of political communication.

Monica Postelnicu is a doctoral student in the College of Journalism and Communications at the Universityof Florida, Gainesville. Her research focuses on computer-mediated communication, new media, and use ofthe Internet in political communication. She is the coauthor of several papers presented to conferences suchas the ICA, AEJMC, NCA, and APSA.





Documents

Political Advertising in the 2004 Election: Comparison of Traditional Television and Internet Messages