Search

The article discusses the research study conducted to examine the difference in the voting criteria and vote decision quality on the differing informational context presented at 2014 Annual Conference of American Political Science Association in Washington D.C. Topics discussed include comparison between low and high information elections, interpersonal communication about the campaign among voters, and information on 2010 U.S. Senate and House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania.

While much research shows that citizens can come to a vote choice in a low information election environment by using cues, this literature does not consider the role of campaign communication. This paper extends the theory of cues by arguing that campaign communication serves as a vehicle that delivers surface level information to voters, thereby inviting them to employ certain cognitive shortcuts - a phenomenon which termed cue amplification. Using an experiment conducted during the 2007 Pennsylvania judicial elections, the analysis tests whether exposure to Supreme Court candidates' ads affected voting behavior, specifically looking at the predictive power of party identification in vote choice. The results show that party can become more predictive of vote choice when exposed to low information campaign communication. Additionally, when amplification of the party cue occurred, it was due to learning of a candidate's ideology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While much research shows that citizens can come to a vote choice in a low information election environment by using cues, this literature does not consider the role of campaign communication. This paper extends the theory of cues by arguing that campaign communication serves as a vehicle that delivers surface level information to voters, thereby inviting them to employ certain cognitive shortcuts - a phenomenon which termed cue amplification. Using an experiment conducted during the 2007 Pennsylvania judicial elections, the analysis tests whether exposure to Supreme Court candidates' ads affected voting behavior, specifically looking at the predictive power of party identification in vote choice. The results show that party can become more predictive of vote choice when exposed to low information campaign communication. Additionally, when amplification of the party cue occurred, it was due to learning of a candidate's ideology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature on cross-pressures on voting was recently invigorated with evidence that "wedge" issues can persuade partisans to vote against their party. This paper extends theories of cross-pressuring and cognitive dissonance to voting behavior in low information elections with the introduction of the concept cue-competition. This paper considers whether partisans can be cross-pressured by a competing cue to vote against the party cue, and how cross-pressured partisans cognitively justify voting against one?s party. In an experiment conducted during the 2007 Pennsylvania judicial elections, subjects were exposed to candidates? ads, one of which included an appeal on gender as an alternative cue to party. The findings reveal that partisans were cross-pressured to vote for a female candidate even though it meant voting against their party. Also, self-persuasion that the opposing party?s female candidate was closer to their own ideology allowed cross-pressured partisans to rationalize voting against one?s party. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judicial campaigns have become increasingly similar in form to Presidential and Congressional elections; they are more heated and costly. The 2007 Pennsylvania judicial elections provided an opportunity to study the impact of a negative judicial campaign message on electorate opinion. This paper presents an experimental examination of the effect of the grassroots organization PACleanSweep's negative campaign message on perceptions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, using the reception-acceptance model as a foundation for understanding perceptual change from campaign messages. Results show that exposure to the PACleanSweep message caused subjects to be less supportive of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; level of awareness of the judicial election and prior support for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted as conditional variables. Judicial campaign messages can induce a shift in electorate opinion, but influencing the electorate in a judicial campaign has different implications compared to elections of other institutions, with potentially devastating consequences for the judiciary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the real-time effects of various types of judicial campaign content, including informative, self-promoting advertising, on voter mobilization during the 2007 Pennsylvania judicial election. In an online experiment, subjects were randomly assigned to watch a video containing a form of campaign content, ranging from positive and self-promoting to negative and accusatory. The results show that subjects exposed to the informative, selfpromoting ads voted at a higher rate than those in the other conditions. This relationship is mediated by knowledge gained about the candidates and perceived appropriateness of attacks in a judicial campaign. Conversely, there is no evidence for either mobilization or demobilization as a consequence of exposure to the negative campaign content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judicial elections have become more expensive and excited. Millions of dollars have been spent on campaign advertising by candidates, parties, and independent groups, which may be the electorate's only source of information. These ads often contain cues including information aligning a candidate with a party or group. Relying on a unique combination of a survey/experiment and a natural experiment, this paper examines how state Supreme Court advertisements from the 2007 Pennsylvania Supreme Court election cued an electorate to vote along party lines. Results show that exposure to a candidate's ads increases vote for that candidate when the voter is of the same party as the candidate. This relationship is mediated through knowledge gained from the ads. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As elections for state judicial offices have become "noisier, nastier, and costlier" (Schotland 2002), court observers have become increasingly concerned about the consequences of campaign activity for the perceived impartiality of judges and the legitimacy of courts. Unfortunately, however, little systematic evidence exists on how citizens view their state judiciaries and whether those views are shaped by the campaign activities of candidates for judicial office. Perhaps the alarmists are correct about the corrosive effects of politicized campaigning; but perhaps they are instead incorrect to the extent that the American people actually prefer judges to engage in real, policy-based contests for judicial office.The purpose of this paper is to investigate the consequences of judicial campaign activity for the perceived legitimacy of the Pennsylvania judiciary. Based on a panel survey of registered Pennsylvanian voters — conducted before, during, and after the 2007 election — we rely upon a formal, video-based experiment in which subjects are exposed to actual advertisements and related campaign communications broadcast by and about candidates for judicial offices. Our central hypothesis is that those exposed to highly politicized content will extend less legitimacy to courts. The process we believe involved in the changing of attitudes is one in which citizens learn that courts are just "ordinary political institutions," and, as such, have no special claims to respect and legitimacy. We find mixed support for the hypothesis that the "new-style" of judicial campaigns poses important threats to the nation's elected courts. Politicized campaign ads do detract from court support, although we find practically no difference between traditional campaign ads (e.g., presenting endorsements from groups) and strong attack ads. But this finding must be understood within the context of the 2007 election increasing court support for all respondents, even those exposed to the most politicized ad content. Being exposed to politicized ads seems to retard the benefits of elections, but not eliminate them. Our findings suggest that it may be necessary to re-think the expectations the American people hold of their elected judges and courts, and how perceived impartiality and institutional legitimacy can be protected in the context of sharp debate over the policies judges make. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the real-time effects of judicial advertising on voter mobilization. In an online experiment, subjects were randomly assigned to watch either a control video or a video containing one of two types of advertising from the 2007 Pennsylvania judicial election: informative, self-promoting ads from the candidates or an attack ad from the grassroots organization PACleanSweep. The results show that subjects exposed to the informative, self-promoting ads voted at a higher rate than those shown the negative attack ad. This relationship is mediated by knowledge gained about the candidates. Conversely, there is no evidence for either mobilization or demobilization as a consequence of exposure to the negative advertising. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pluralism concerns the prevalence of ideological balance in a country's media system. Instead of looking from the political system down, evaluating pluralism from the audience up to the media is a better indicator of whether a citizenry receives an ideological balance of information or biased information that reinforces their views of government and democracy. This study analyzes whether media exposure during national elections affects perceptions of democratic legitimacy in Hungary, Taiwan, and the United States, and whether historical trends in pluralism moderate this relationship. Results show that exposure to traditional media, particularly television, positively affects perceived legitimacy, a robust finding from all three countries; but trends in pluralism do not moderate this relationship. A theoretical discussion explains the positive relationship among traditional media and the negative relationship for the Internet, including implications for the study of pluralism and media bias in democracies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CNN Shirts is a marketing campaign on CNN.com that sells t-shirts featuring news headlines. Through this campaign, which debuted during the 2008 Presidential election, CNN capitalized on the popularity of political fashion during this pivotal election, and mixed news and comedy to tap into younger consumers. This paper examines the CNN Shirts as a rebranding campaign amidst major changes in the news industry. A content analysis of CNN Shirt's political headlines coded though Election Day 2008 demonstrates CNN's move to target younger consumers and project a pop-culture image. Most importantly, the findings show that while a majority of the headlines mentioned a candidate, they overwhelmingly appealed to humor and were void of issue content. We discuss the implications of such marketing strategies for news audiences and the news industry at large. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]