‘ « llllllllllllllzlllllllllllllllllllllllllHllllllllllll

gs, \ 301575 5732

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SUPERFICIAL IMAGERY VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL:
THE PROCESSING OF EACH IN POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

presented by

Janet Katherine McKeon

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Jommnnination

 

Major professor

 

Date 344/7461 ”47

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE -
ssp‘élsffié’ssl’ *-
WT
FEBOMZZHIO i
' m g 5‘ M71

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

“if 1 a @3031.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/0! mas-nu

SUPERFICIAL IMAGERY VERSUS SUBSTANT IVE MATERIAL:
THE PROCESSING OF EACH IN POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

By

Janet Katherine McKeon

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

I997

ABSTRACT

SUPERFICIAL IMAGERY VERSUS SUBSTANT IVE MATERIAL:
THE PROCESSING OF EACH IN POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

By
Janet Katherine McKeon

Candidates have become dependent on political advertisements as a means to
present themselves to potential voters. Political advertisements allow audience members
to learn about the substantive material as well as the superficial imagery that the candidate
presents. But what type of information is processed more by audience members --
substantive material or superficial imagery?

This study investigates the processing of superficial imagery and substantive
material in political advertisements and attempts to extend the Heuristic-Systematic
Model, a cognitive processing theory, to include other concepts of involvement. The
processing of superficial imagery and substantive material in both sofi and hard message
advertisements presented through the radio and television mediums are examined.
Superficial imagery refers to the personal characteristics of the candidate, and substantive
material refers to the issues that the candidate presents. Political involvement is examined
as a predictor of processing superficial imagery and substantive material.

Results indicate that with higher levels of political involvement, more substantive
material is processed, but that low involvement individuals do not necessarily process
more superficial imagery. In general, both low and high involvement individuals process
equal amounts of information between soft and hard message conditions. Further, more

superficial imagery is processed from television than from radio advertisements.

To my parents, Shirley and James McKeon, and my husband, Bruce Lillie,

for whose continual love, support, and understanding I am forever gratefiil.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people I would like to thank for their contribution to the final
stages of my graduate education. First I would like to thank Dr. Charles K. Atkin, my
knowing and wise advisor and chair, who continually offered his insight, knowledge, and
time on numerous drafis. Truly, without his efforts, this publication would not have been
possible. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Erwin P.
Bettinghaus and Dr. Charles T. Salmon whose comments became invaluable contributions
to this project. Your time and effort is appreciated. In addition, I would like to thank Dr.
Kim Witte, not only for her contribution as a committee member, but also for her guidance
as my research team advisor for my first two years of my doctoral program. Further, I am
very thankful for all the special friendships I have made through the graduate school
experience.

Most of all, I would like to acknowledge the encouragement and support of my
parents, Shirley and Jim McKeon, who have always been there for me in all my endeavors.
Also, I would like to thank a very special person who I met in a graduate course a few
years ago -- my wonderful husband Bruce. My greatest thanks go to him for his
understanding, love, patience, insight, stress-reducing shoulder massages, and most

importantly -- his good sense of humor.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS
The Influence of Radio and Television
Advertisements on Television
Varying the Audio and Video Channels
Superficial Imagery and Substantive Material
Involvement

CHAPTER 3

COGNITIVE PROCESSING
Introduction
Capacity Model of Attention
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Heuristic-Systematic Model
Summary of Research Hypotheses

CHAPTER 4

METHODS
Overview
Phase I: Pretest of Stimulus Materials
Phase 2: Data Collection

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
Overview
Profile of Research Participants
Profile of Political Candidate
Hypotheses for All Advertisements
Hypotheses for Sofi Message and Hard Message Advertisements
Hypotheses for Television and Radio Advertisements

vii

viii

00

12
IS

18
18
I9
22
24
3O

32
32
33
36

50
50
50
SI
53
58
62

Research Question Regarding Candidate Evaluation
Additional Analyses

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION
Overview
Political Involvement and Recall with All Advertisements
Political Involvement and Recall with Soft and Hard Messages
Recall with Television and Radio Advertisements
Candidate Evaluation
Males and Females
Implications of the Study
Limitations
Directions for Future Research

APPENDIX A: Text for Advertisements

APPENDIX B: Round 1 - Pretest of Stimulus Materials
APPENDIX C: Round 2 - Sofi and Hard Messages
APPENDIX D: Measurement Instrument

APPENDIX E: Coding Categories for Thought-Listing Items
APPENDIX F: Factor Loadings for Political Involvement
APPENDIX G: Factor Loadings for Substantive Material
APPENDIX H: Factor Loadings for Total Recall

LIST OF REFERENCES

65
67

72
72
72
74
76
77
78
8O
83
85
88
89
90
98
I O3
106
l 07
I O8

109

LIST OF TABLES

Table l - Means and T-test Results for Compassion, Caring, Hearted,
Rational, Sympathy, and Soft

Table 2 - Descriptive Data on Semantic Differential Scales

Table 3 - Means for Total Recall, Superficial Imagery, and
Substantive Material

Table 4 - Means and T-tests for the Two Groups of Semantic
Differential Scales

Table 5 - Means and T-tests for Did Not Vote and Voted on Recall of
Total Information, Recall of Superficial Imagery, Recall of
Substantive Material, and Political Involvement

Table 6 - Means and T-tests for Males and Females on Recall of Total

Information, Recall of Superficial Imagery, Recall of Substantive
Material, and Political Involvement

vii

42

52

59

66

68

70

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l - The Soft Messages - Hard Messages Continuum

viii

I3

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

When candidates present their positions on issues in political advertisements, they
also convey information about their image regardless if this image information is intended
or not. Given that elements of both image and issues are presented in advertisements,
questions concerning what audience members recall from such advertisements are
important. When watching political advertisements on television or listening to them over
the radio, what is recalled more -- the superficial imagery, such as personal
characteristics of the candidate, or substantive material, such as the issues presented by
the candidate? Additionally, through what types of messages is superficial imagery and
substantive material recalled, soft messages, backed by the candidate’s softer rationale of
caring and understanding, or hard messages, backed by the candidate’s harder rationale
of good policy and tough decision making?

Although previous research indicates that message variables as well as individual
differences influence audience members’ recall of political advertisements, researchers do
not know exactly which factors determine whether audience members will cognitively
process the issues (substantive material) that the candidate presents or the personal
characteristics (superficial imagery) that the candidate possesses. Previous research has
examined similar aspects of the substantive material versus superficial imagery question

(often termed “issues versus image”) with a variety of theories. Some of these theories

(‘0

include, uses and gratifications approach (Garramone, I983, I985), attraction and
expectancy theory, rational appraisal model, ethology (Lanzetta, Sullivan, Masters &
McHugo, 1985), schema theory, (Biocca, 1991), mood congruency and assimilation-
contrast theory (Basil, Schooler & Reeves, 1991). But, these studies still do not
illuminate which factors determine whether audience members will cognitively process the
substantive material that the candidate presents or the superficial imagery that the
candidate represents.

Recent history has also indicated that a candidate’s image can become an issue in a
campaign. In the 1996 presidential election, while candidate Dole was trying to make
alliances with voters by stating that he was the bridge to the past, the incumbent, President
Clinton, was making the claim that he was building the bridge to the fixture (Gibbs &
Duffy, 1996). Dole’s image of being old was confirmed by many people as he continued
his promise of being the bridge to the past, whereas Clinton developed the image of being
able to lead the country into the next century. The images of these two candidates grew
strong in the minds of the voters and soon became campaign issues.

Although there are cases of a candidate’s image becoming a campaign issue, this
study attempts to separate image from issue and addresses the question of what audience
members cognitively process more of, superficial imagery or substantive material, and
through which type of advertisements, soft messages or hard messages, this processing
most occurs. Additionally, this study investigates the degree to which individuals’ political
involvement motivates them to engage in the processing of superficial imagery and
substantive material. To begin the investigation, this study compares the audience’s recall

of superficial imagery and substantive material as presented by the candidate in political

b)

advertisements. Recall for soft and hard messages presented through radio and television
channels is examined.

In order to make valid comparisons, political advertisements for this study have
been constructed so that soft and hard message advertisements present both superficial
imagery and substantive material. In the soft message advertisements, the candidate
presents a caring, compassionate, and understanding image, and the issues are packaged
with a “caring” rationale. In the hard message advertisements, the candidate presents a
tough decision-maker image, and the issues are packaged with a “good policy” rationale.
Additionally, more traditional, and seemingly softer, verbs (e.g., support, favor) are used
in the soft messages and more action-oriented verbs (e.g., advocate, enact legislation) are
used in the hard messages. Based on the differences in image, rationale, and verbs
between the soft and hard messages, soft message advertisements reflect superficial
imagery and hard messages reflect substantive material. Soft messages have been
developed to accentuate the superficial imagery of the candidate, given the “caring”
image, “caring” rationale and use of traditional, softer verbs. Hard message
advertisements have been developed to accentuate the substantive material presented by
the candidate, given the “tough decision-maker” image, “good policy” rationale and the
use of the action-oriented verbs. Thus, the soft message advertisements essentially convey
more superficial imagery of the candidate and the hard message advertisements convey
more substantive material presented by the candidate. For a complete review of the
messages, please see Appendix A.

Superficial imagery is defined as the personal characteristics (i.e., caring, friendly,

sincere) that audience members perceive the candidate to have. The processing of

superficial imagery is indirectly measured by how many personal characteristics are
recalled by individuals exposed to political advertisements. In this study, processing of the
candidate’s superficial imagery is indicated by a cluster of traits (characteristics) that
reflect the candidate as a politician as well as a person (Nimmo & Savage, 1976; Shyles,
1984). These characteristics can reflect the candidate’s personality, presentation style,
physical appearance, as well as how the candidate packages the issues that he or she
presents (i.e., “caring” rationale or “good policy” rationale). Such traits can be derived
fi'om the candidate’s nonverbal communication (e.g., gestures, physical stance) as well as
verbal communication (e.g., articulate speech, content of speech). Superficial imagery is
measured based on the number of these such personal characteristics recalled about the
candidate.

Substantive material is defined as the issues that the candidate presents. The
processing of substantive material is indirectly measured by how many issues are recalled
by individuals exposed to political advertisements. The processing of the candidate’s
substantive material in this study is indicated by the issues or policies advocated by the
candidate. Substantive material can be derived from candidate’s verbal communication
(e.g., what the candidate says in terms of issues or policies). Substantive material is
measured based on the amount of correct information recalled about the issues and
policies presented, such as what ideas the candidate supports or what the candidate
proposes to do.

Theoretical guidance for this study is mainly derived from one cognitive processing
theory, Heuristic-Systematic Model, and is applied to predict audience members’ recall of

superficial imagery and substantive material presented in advertisements. Applying the

general tenets of this theory to this political setting will yield a better understanding as to
why some individuals cognitively process more superficial imagery of the candidate, while
others cognitively process more substantive material presented by the candidate.

In order to begin research on the recall of superficial imagery versus substantive
material, Chapter 2 reviews political advertisements, superficial imagery and substantive
material, as well as the concept of involvement. In Chapter 3, the Heuristic-Systematic
Model, along with two other cognitive processing theories, Capacity Model of Attention
and Elaboration-Likelihood Model, are examined and hypotheses are derived.

A thorough description of the methods implemented for conducting the study,
such as procedures and measures, is presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the
results of the analyses. The final chapter, Chapter 6, concludes with a discussion of the

findings and offers implications for the findings discussed.

Chapter 2
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS
The Influence of Radio and Television

The first major historical event illustrating that images portrayed on television can
be more powerful than the words spoken was the first “Great Debate” of 1960. Those
who watched on television the first Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960 thought that Kennedy
had won the debate, however, those who had tuned into the debate from their radios
believed that Nixon had won (Jamieson & Birdsell, I988; Wykoff, 1968). Both the radio
and television audiences, not only Ieamed how well the two candidates could perform in a
debate, but they also formed images of each of the candidate’s ability and character (Katz
& Feldman, 1962).

The difference between viewers’ cognitively processing the substantive material
versus the superficial imagery lies with the powerfirl images that can be viewed via
television because “viewers are more disposed to respond to the impression created by a
televised message than its substance, by the pictures it conveys rather than the words”
(Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988, p. 183). Viewers of the Kennedy-Nixon debate saw Nixon as
a pale, thin, and shifty-eyed man, who was wearing a suit that was too big, and who
shifted his weight too often while standing at the podium. Even his make-up failed to
cover up his five o’clock shadow (Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988). Although all of these

factors have reasons which do not indicate specific character flaws (fiom a recent hospital

stay he had lost weight, leaving him pale, thin, thus wearing a suit too big; he kept
glancing at a wall clock off stage resulting in shifty-eye movements; and he had injured his
knee while getting out of his limousine causing him to favor one knee over the other), they
were detrimental to the impression left with viewers concerning his overall character. In
comparison, Kennedy looked sharper, giving the impression that he was more firm, in
control, and could stand up to Khrushchev, the current leader of the USSR (Wykoff,
1968). To the television viewers, the television images told all, Kennedy clearly triumphed
over Nixon.

However, for those listening to the debate on the radio, they had a completely
different impression. From the Southern Governors’ Conference which he had been
assigned to cover, Earl Mazo (1962) wrote about the reaction in the room firll of
governors, “Before the encounter on radio was half finished, every Kennedy partisan in the
room was disparaging the idea of a fine, upstanding young man like Senator Kennedy
having to clash verbally with a crusty old professional debater like Vice President Nixon.
But the attitude changed immediately when the magic lantern of television came on,” (p.
6).

Based on the radio presentation, Nixon’s deep resonant voice conveyed more
command, conviction, and determination to those governors listening than the high-
pitched voice with the Boston-Harvard accent that Kennedy’s voice possessed (Mazo,
1962). There were clear differences of opinion between television viewers and those
listening from their radios as to which candidate prevailed in the first debate. By

comparing the impressions of the “Great Debate” between the radio audience and the

television audience, it is clear that television transforms political candidates into personal
images (Wykoff, 1968).

Over the years, the use of television as a political presentation tool has increased
dramatically. Today, viewers are exposed to candidates through a variety of televised
formats, including town hall meetings, debates, infomercials, news stories, interviews, talk
shows, entertainment shows, and political advertisements. From these formats, political
advertisements are the best choice for investigating the superficial imagery versus
substantive material question because their structure of presentation allows for testable
comparisons to determine similarities and differences.

Many of the other formats do not provide such a clean process of comparison as
they are not controlled presentations produced by the candidate. More specifically,
positive political advertisements offer the best means of comparison given that they
present the candidate and the candidate’s ideas, they do not present the opponent’s
position, and they do not counter-argue the opponent’s positions. Additionally, positive
political advertisements share many similar qualities such as length, source presenter,
product (the candidate), and message content. Given the similarities among positive
advertisements in general, constructing positive political advertisements for this study
offers a good means through which to examine the cognitive processing of superficial
imagery and substantive material.

Advertisements on Television
Impressive increases in campaign costs that are devoted to televised political

advertising suggest that political advertising on television has an increasingly important

role in the American political system (Shyles, 1986). Starting with some of the very first
advertisements in 1952, a look at the political messages that have aired emphasizes the
wide variety of possible styles. Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson were the
presidential candidates in 1952, the first year that political television commercials aired
(Thorson, Christ & Caywood, 1991). One of Eisenhower’s televised political messages
was a cartoon. That cartoon showed circus animals parading in a single row with an
Eisenhower banner that read “We like Ike,” and as the animals marched along they were
singing “You like Ike. I like Ike. Everybody likes Ike.” Later, some criticism was made
of the advertisement in that the real role “was selling the President like toothpaste”
(Mayar, 1958, p. 302).

Eisenhower also had a series of advertisements appropriately called “Eisenhower
Answers America.” Paid for by Citizens for Eisenhower, these advertisements showed a
typical citizen asking a question of President Eisenhower. An example of one such
advertisement is illustrated in Diamond and Bates (1992): a middle-aged woman asks
Eisenhower, “The Democrats have made mistakes, but aren’t their intentions good?”
Eisenhower responds, “Well, if the driver of your school bus runs into a truck, hits a
lamppost, drives into a ditch, you don’t say his intentions are good; you get a new bus
driver” (p. 56).

Although Eisenhower probably would have won a second term regardless of the
advertisements, his campaign raised the first major questions about politics, advertising,
and television, such as: Do advertisements ignore issues and content in order to present

images and emotion? and Does the best candidate win, or the most telegenic performer?

10

(Diamond and Bates, 1992). The question of what viewers recall in terms of superficial
imagery or substantive material continues to be very important as use and variety of
television for political advertisements increases. Critics have often claimed that the
content in televised political advertisements works with the inherent characteristics of
television to highlight the candidate’s superficial imagery at the expense of gaining
information on the candidate’s substantive material (Geiger & Reeves, 1991). The
discrepancy between learning about substantive material versus learning about superficial
imagery lies with the powerfirl images that can be viewed via television because Viewers
are more disposed to respond to the impression created by a televised message than its
substance, by the pictures it conveys rather than the words” (Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988, p.
183).

It has been noted that personalities of the candidates are becoming more important
as party identification is becoming less important (Lanzetta, Sullivan, Masters & McHugo,
1985). Television may tend to present emotional responses to viewers thus facilitating the
shift from substantive material to superficial imagery. During a political campaign,
viewers see the candidates on television daily. Given its nature, television provides in-
depth information on political candidate’s facial images at the same time it presents the
verbal messages. These nonverbal cues are extremely important as they are known to
communicate emotion as well as provide information for viewers to construct trait
evaluations (Lanzetta, Sullivan, Masters & McHugo, 1985).

However, in some cases, previous research has found that both candidate

qualifications and issue stands compose the message content that is most widely Ieamed

11

among viewers (Atkin, Bowen, Nayrnan, & Sheinkopf, 1973). Information gained on the
substantive material presented in a political advertisement is most likely to be gained
through the audio channel of the advertisement; impressions of the candidate’s superficial
imagery are more likely to be created from both the audio and video channels (Garramone,
Steele & Pinkleton, 1991). More specifically, it has been found that when political
candidates are shown on television, viewers tend to use the pictures to judge the candidate
on personality traits (Graber, 1987). It has also been found that viewers primarily focus
on image formation (Glass, 1985) and use nonverbal information as a key factor in
assessing a candidate (Rosenburg & McCafferty, 1987). This television medium is unique
in that it offers the opportunity for candidates to create messages primarily of content
while displaying images of the candidate through the combined use of audio and video
channels.
mm Audio M Video Chan_ne_l_§

As previously mentioned, audience’s impressions of a candidate’s image can be
derived fiom both the audio and video channels. Given this, the four advertisements
created for this study will differ in terms of their audio and video channels. While the
content and amount of information, in terms of the issues presented in the advertisements
will be the same, the candidate’s rationale of the issues differs, thus varying the audio
channel. This occurs, such that in the soft message advertisements the candidate packages
the issues with the general notion of “caring,” and that in the hard message
advertisements the candidate packages the issues with the general notion of “good policy.”

The “caring” rationale is composed of phrases such as “I understand the value of strong

l2

families,” “I have compassion for those who are terminally ill,” and “I care about you and
your community.” The “good policy” rationale is composed of phrases such as “I believe
in the constitutional right of personal choice,” “it’s a practical means of maintaining the
family unit,” and “I’m the candidate who can make tough decisions and solve tough
problems.”

Further, the video channel will also vary, such that one set of advertisements will
be presented over the television channel (using both audio and video channels) while the
other set of advertisements will be listened to over the radio channel (using only the audio
channel). In addition to the “caring” rationale which accentuates the superficial imagery
(verbaIIY), other image characteristics can be derived from the visual image of the
candidate. Thus, these advertisements will have superficial imagery depicted through both
the verbal packaging of the issues as well as the video channel offered through television.

Superficial Imagery and Substantive Material

 

The concepts of superficial imagery and substantive material can be firrther
understood when considering their place on a continuum anchored by soft and hard
messages. At the soft message end, there exists the most discernible soft image
characteristics (e.g., kind, caring, smart, good looking). At the hard message end, there
exists the most discernible ideas or issues proposed (e.g., advocates physician-assisted
suicide, wants to enact legislation of benefits for domestic partners).

Although containing aspects of both superficial imagery and substantive material,
the advertisements created for this study can be separated into two sets, such that one set

with the “caring” rationale more closely approaches the soft message end, while the other

set with the “good policy” rationale more closely approaches the hard message end. The
soft message advertisements are considered to approach the soft message end because the
“caring” rationale along with the softer verbs invokes more image impressions about the
candidate as it plays down the issues. The hard message advertisements are considered to
approach the hard message end because the “good policy” rationale along with the action-
oriented verbs is intended to work in conjunction with the issues to more strongly present
the issues advocated by the candidate. The placement of the two sets of advertisements

on the soft message-hard message continuum is presented in Figure 1.

 

 

 

Caring Good Policy
Rationale Rationale
l l
T l
Soft Messages Hard Messages

Figure l - The Soft Messages - Hard Messages Continuum

Given the experimental manipulation considerations concerning this study, the
advertisements have been created so that they are as close as they possibly can be to the
soft and hard message ends of the continuum. Although these sets of messages are not as
extreme as the continuum indicates, they are as different as possible considering that the
issues, sentence structure, and the amount of information presented in the advertisements

are the same. In order to achieve messages that represented the extreme ends of the

l4

continuum, a number of message aspects would have to be manipulated. Given internal
validity considerations, only the image and rationales were manipulated so that research
findings pertaining to the differences between soft and hard messages would be valid.

When comparing hard message advertisements with soft message advertisements,
it is noted that emphasis placed on personality and ability in soft message advertisements is
intended to arouse affective responses that elicit positive feelings fiom the audience
members to the candidates (Geiger & Reeves, 1991). For hard message advertisements,
messages are to be understood and not felt; they evoke more rational responses, such as
judging candidate on their positions (F ishbein & Ajzen, 1981). From this it seems
reasonable to assume that more positive feelings are elicited to the candidate when
audience members recall aspects of soft message advertisements opposed to hard message
advertisements.

However, previous research has illustrated that hard message advertisements
produced significantly more positive evaluations of the political candidate than did soft
message advertisements (Kaid & Sanders, 1978). Other studies have also found that hard
message advertisements elicit more positive evaluations of the candidates along with more
elaborate representations of the candidates compared to soft message advertisements
(Conover, I981; Geiger & Reeves, 1991). One explanation for this is that positive
evaluations might be given due to the mere presentation of issues presented in the hard
message advertisements (Geiger & Reeves, 1991). Given that the same issues are
presented in both sets of advertisements (hard and soft messages), it is reasonable to

expect that the soft message advertisements will result in more positive evaluations

15

concerning the candidate than will the hard message advertisements. In the present work,
the evaluations of the candidates as well as recall of superficial imagery and substantive
material will be investigated.

Involvement

Researchers have often used the concept of involvement when attempting to
understand the conditions under which individuals are persuaded by others (Johnson &
Eagly, 1989). Even though there has been considerable agreement among researchers that
the concept of involvement is important, there has been considerable disagreement across
research domains as to what involvement is (Salmon, 1986). Over many research studies,
involvement has been considered in many different perspectives. Given that involvement
has been studied in numerous ways, it is necessary for researchers to specify what kind of
involvement is being studied in order to best understand the results.

Some of the perspectives of involvement discuss involvement as an internal state
(Pedersen, 1978; Tan, 1980), as a response to a stimulus (Petty and Cacioppo, 1979; Petty
and Cacioppo, 1981b), and as a personality trait (Kassarjian, 1980). Within each of these
perspectives there are a variety of ways that involvement is conceptualized. For example,
the concept of ego-involvement was developed and brought into persuasion literature as a
major role in a theory of attitude change, the social judgment-involvement approach
(Hovland, Harvey & Sherif, I957; Sherif, Sherif& Nebergall, 1965; Sherif & Hovland,
1961). An individual’s self-concept is the basis for the research on ego-involvement.
More specifically, ego-involvement is composed of the ego-involved attitudes constituting

an individual’s self-picture (Salmon, 1986). Social judgrnent-involving theorists proposed

16

that attitudes provide an internal flame of reference for reacting to and judging stimuli
related to the attitude (Sherif, Sherif & Nebergall, 1965; Sherif & Hovland, I961; Sherif &
Sherif, 1967). Further, as suggested by Sherif and Cantril (1947), attitudes are consistent
with one’s ego, therefore, an individual will become personally involved when such
attitudes are situationally evoked. Given this perspective of involvement, ego-involvement
is considered to be an internal state and is based upon a subject-object interaction principle
(Salmon, 1986).

Further, another perspective considers involvement as a condition that has “fixture
consequences” for the individual (Salmon, 1986). For this perspective, involvement is
being used as a stimulus rather than an internal condition of the individual. Studies using
involvement as such usually experimentally manipulate involvement such that they present
a topic of personal relevance or importance to the individual (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981b;
Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). This is a different type of involvement than what is
suggested by Sherif and Cantril (1947). Although involvement is still examined as an
interaction between the individual and the stimulus, in the “future consequences” use it is
defined as the importance of an issue opposed to the individual’s interest in the issue
(Salmon, 1986).

Political Involvement. For this study an individual’s political involvement is
assessed. The type of involvement used in this study to measure political involvement is
most closely associated with the concept of ego-involvement. Political involvement is
constructed with two dimensions in mind: behavioral and psychological. Items tapping the

behavioral dimension of political involvement inquire about one’s participation in political

17

activities such as volunteering on a campaign, reading newspaper stories about the
campaign or candidate, or discussing political candidates with fiiends in hopes of
persuading them to vote in favor of one candidate over the other. Items tapping the
psychological dimension of political involvement inquire about one’s attitude or interest
toward political activities such as having concern for the outcome of the campaign or

believing that an understanding of party issues is worthwhile.

Chapter 3
COGNITIVE PROCESSING
Introduction

This section presents three cognitive processing theories that are used as a basis
for the predictions concerning the recall of substantive material and superficial imagery
presented in the advertisements. Of the three, one main theory, Heuristic-Systematic
Model, is used to generate hypotheses concerning political involvement and the recall of
superficial imagery and substantive material. The other two theories (Capacity Model of
Attention and Elaboration Likelihood Model) serve as additional theoretical support for
assumptions made about political involvement and the processing of information presented
in the advertisements. The Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) discusses heuristic and
systematic processing in terms of processing “content cues” and “noncontent cues.” This
study adapts these general information processing and message terms to fit the purpose of
this study which is to determine differences in recall of substantive material information
and superficial imagery information presented in political advertisements.

Given how the advertisements were constructed for this study, the assertion is
made that the concept of candidates’ substantive material presented in the advertisements
theoretically corresponds to the HSM’s term “content cues,” and that the concept of
candidates’ superficial imagery presented in the advertisements theoretically corresponds

to the HSM’s term “noncontent cues.”

l8

19

Although aspects of both substantive material and superficial imagery are in the
advertisements, the soft message advertisements are designed to produce more
impressions of the candidate’s image due to the use of softer verbs and a “caring”
rationale. Whereas, the hard message advertisements are designed to produce more
impressions conceming the issues presented by the candidate due to the use of action-
oriented verbs and the “good policy” rationale. Each of the guiding theories is presented
individually with their specific terms, however, the hypotheses are derived from the
general tenets of the HSM and incorporate the political concepts of substantive material
(as relating to “content cues”) and superficial imagery (as relating to “noncontent cues”).
Capacig Model of Attention (CMA)

Introduced by Kahneman in 1973, the CMA offers a parallel processing view for
how individuals attend to objects and acts. This model suggests that individuals can
process different stimuli simultaneously as opposed to focusing on one stimulus and
leaving the other ignored or secondarily attended to. Kahneman maintained that within
the bounds of a fixed upper limit, the amount of processing capacity an individual has
available is variable and is a function of task difficulty. Therefore, individuals processing
tasks of greater difficulty exert more effort, and as a result, have more available capacity
compared to individuals who are engaged in processing simple tasks. Kahneman, Peavler
and Onuska’s (1968) study (examination of short term memory and more difficult addition
tasks with monetary rewards for good performance) showed that processing capacity
expands as a function of the difficulty of task, and in some cases as a firnction of

involvement.

20

Kahneman (1973) suggested that individuals allocate their capacity between
primary and secondary processing tasks. Such that, the amount of capacity used for
processing the primary task approaches total capacity allowing for only a little “spare”
capacity for secondary information processing when there are higher levels of primary task
demand. Further, the amount of capacity utilized for processing the primary task is
considerably less than the total capacity allowing for more “spare” capacity for the
individual to process secondary information simultaneously when there are lower levels of
task demand. Both processing capacity and attention are directed toward the primary
cues. After the primary cues have received their allocation of capacity, the remainder
processing capacity is the available for processing secondary cues (Kahneman, 1973).

Given that the capacity model assumes that the total amount of attention which can
be distributed at any given time is limited, there are two key observations to keep in mind.
First, variations in arousal levels of individuals are affected by variations in the task
difficulty. Second, individuals’ ability to process several mental activities simultaneously
depends on the effort each of the activities requires when performed in isolation. At low
levels of primary task demand, secondary tasks can be processed in conjunction with the
primary task as allowed by the spare capacity. At high levels of primary task, the
individual must select which single task to focus on as the level of spare capacity is
completely diminished (Kahneman, 1973).

Different mental activities require different amounts of attention allocation on an
individuals’ limited capacity. Easy tasks require little effort, whereas a difficult task

requires more effort. An activity can fail, according to the model, because the demands on

21

attention exceed the available capacity, or because the allocation policy distributes the
available capacity to other activities. Further, an activity can also fail if the input of
relevant information is insufficient to attend to.

Involvement is a key factor in the CMA in terms of how messages are cognitively
processed. Individuals are not motivated to process many persuasive message cues at low
levels of involvement. Therefore, the capacity for processing the primary task, whether
the processing is toward content or noncontent cues, is minimal allowing for considerable
“spare” capacity for secondary cues. With low involvement, individuals are not motivated
to process either content or noncontent cues to a great extent, both types will receive
minimal attention, subsequently having minimal influence on attitudes (Stiff, 1986; 1994).
At moderate levels of involvement individuals are capable of processing both primary and
secondary cues simultaneously as the total capacity demand has not exceeded available
capacity. Compared to low involvement, these cues receive more attention and become
more effective at influencing attitudes (Stiff, 1986; I994). Lastly, at levels of high
involvement, individuals are forced to choose between processing content cues or
noncontent cues because the capacity demanded for primary cue processing approaches
total capacity. It is predicted that such individuals will select to process content cues
opposed to noncontent cues due to their increased utility for making accurate decisions.
Such highly involved individuals will be influenced by the content cues not the noncontent

cues (Stiff, 1986; 1994).

Ebflgion Likelihood Model (ELM)

Petty and Cacioppo (1981a) presented a model of persuasion that assumes that
individuals differ in their “elaboration” of persuasive messages, and that these differences
are determined by whether individuals take the central or peripheral route to persuasion.
“Central route” to persuasion was termed as the careful scrutiny of the content of the
message. From this they posited that attitude change is a firnction of message content and
elaboration. Additionally, they termed “peripheral route” to persuasion as the association
of message recommendations with positive or negative cues in the environment. Attitude
change through the peripheral route to persuasion is based on an individual’s assessment
of these noncontent cues.

The “central route” to persuasion occurs when elaboration is relatively high. Such
individuals engage in extensive issue-relevant thinking, such that they carefirlly examine
the content of the message, the arguments provided and consider other issue-relevant
material, such as additional arguments from memory or self-created arguments derived
from their exposure to the message. The “peripheral route” to persuasion occurs when
elaboration is relatively low. Individuals pursuing the peripheral route typically use simple
decision rules when considering the persuasive message. Rather than engaging in issue-
relevant thinking, such individuals may rely on whether or not they liked the message
source, or whether they thought the source was credible or trustworthy (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986).

The more that individuals engage in issue-relevant thinking, the more they are

elaborating, thus, the more they are evaluating the content of the message and assessing

to
b)

the arguments presented in the message. The Elaboration Likelihood Model posits that
persuasion can occur at any point on the elaboration continuum, but as the elaboration
varies, the persuasion occurring will as well (Petty & Cacioppo, I986). The differences in
the persuasion process are a result of which route to persuasion is taken.

As with the CMA, involvement is also a key factor for processing information in
the ELM. An individual’s involvement in the topic plays a key role with how much
elaboration an individual is likely to give, therefore determining whether the central or
peripheral route is taken. For studies examining this model, involvement is understood as
how personally relevant the topic is to the receiver (i.e., a condition that has firture
consequences for a receiver) (Salmon, I986). The theory posits that the more personally
relevant the topic is to the receiver, the more motivation that receiver will have in order to
engage in issue-relevant thinking. One study tested the notion of involvement by
examining the effects of communicator expertise and argument strength on the persuasive
effectiveness (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). Message topic as well as the degree
of involvement were varied, thus the receivers who were less involved with the topic
would have relatively little elaboration, and the receivers who were more involved with the
topic would have relatively high elaboration. The results indicated that individuals in the
high involvement condition were significantly influenced by the strong arguments than the
weak arguments. However, these same individuals were not significantly affected by the
expertise portrayed by the message communicator. For these such individuals persuasion
was obtained through the central route. Conversely, individuals in the low involvement

condition were less influenced by the strength of the message argument, and were more

24

influenced by the expertise of the message source. For these such individuals persuasion
was obtained through the peripheral route.
Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM)

Chaiken (1980) examined heuristic and systematic information processing,
although these processes are conceptually different, they both assess the validity of the
conclusion in the message. With regard to the systematic view, message receivers not
only actively attempt to understand and evaluate persuasive arguments, but they also
determine the validity of the persuasive arguments in relation to the conclusion of the
message. With systematic information processing, considerable cognitive effort must be
used in order to accomplish this task; systematic processing demands uses cognitive
capacity to assess content cues.

With regard to the heuristic view, message receivers rely on the most accessible
information (e.g., general attitude toward the source) in order to determine whether or not
to accept the conclusion of a message. This information which is most accessible consists
of noncontent cues, such as message or source characteristics (e.g., too lengthy or poor
speaker). Contrary to the effort exerted for systematic processing, heuristic processing
requires substantially less effort, demanding little cognitive capacity. Even though these
are two distinct ways of processing information, there exists a concurrent processing
assumption, such that systematic and heuristic processing can exert both independent and
interdependem effects on attitude judgments (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

Systematic processing focuses on detailed processing of the persuasive content of

the message, whereas, heuristic processing focuses on accessible information to judge

25

acceptance of the message. Even though the primary focus for systematic processing is on
the content of the message, it is possible that secondary attention is also given to
noncontent cues. For individuals processing systematically, message factors will always
have greater impact on persuasion on the message then source factors. For individuals
processing the persuasive message heuristically, source factors have a greater impact on
persuasion of the message than messages factors. For heuristic processing simple rules
and schematics can mediate individuals’ attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The theory
posits that systematic processing should be constrained more by situational demands (e.g.,
not enough time to process the message), and by individual differences (e.g., previous
knowledge may facilitate processing), than heuristic processing as these constraints have
the potential to reduce individuals’ ability for processing detailed information. However,
heuristic processing is not effected by either of these variables.

As with the other models, involvement is also a key factor in the cognitive
processes associated with the HSM. In Chaiken’s (1980) work, involvement pertaining to
“firture consequences” was investigated as a moderating variable with systematic and
heuristic processing. In general, when considering individuals’ involvement with the
message topic, under conditions of low involvement individuals utilized heuristic strategies
of processing the persuasive messages, whereas, under conditions of high involvement
individuals utilized systematic strategies of processing persuasive messages (Chaiken,
1980). More specifically, when high versus low consequences were manipulated,
individuals with high consequences had greater opinion change in responses to messages

backed by six arguments and were unaffected by the likability of the message source.

26

Additionally, individuals with high consequences compared to individuals with low
consequences spent more time reading the persuasive message and spent more time
thinking about the persuasive arguments presented by the source opposed to the source’s
characteristics. High consequences individuals were able to recall more arguments as well
as generate more message-oriented thoughts opposed to thoughts concerning the source
characteristics. Further, individuals with low involvement had greater opinion change with
the likable message source and were not affected by the number of arguments used in the
message. When personal relevance was manipulated, individuals with high personal
relevance indicated slightly greater opinion change with persuasive messages comprised on
five arguments (from an unlikable source) than with persuasive messages with one
argument (from a likable source). However, individuals with low personal relevance
indicated significantly greater opinion change when receiving messages with one argument
from a likable source than messages with five arguments from an unlikable source.

The HSM hypothesizes about the “personal relevance” or “future consequences”
type of involvement. However, given that the concept of political involvement used in this
study is most similarly associated with ego-involvement, whose effects have not been
thoroughly tested with HSM or the other cognitive processing theories, it is necessary to
state that testing political involvement with the HSM is expanding the use of the theory to
other concepts of involvement. Hypotheses are formulated based on the general
involvement predictions of the HSM even though the use of involvement is conceptually
different fiom that of political involvement. Essentially, by using political involvement, the

HSM will be tested with a different concept of involvement, if the data support the

27

hypotheses, then this will be a start concerning the application of this theory and possibly
others to include ego-involvement. Theoretical predictions concerning the processing of
content cues and noncontent cues are adapted from the HSM to predict the processing of
substantive material and superficial imagery as recalled by audience members.

Concerning political involvement and the HSM, high involvement individuals,
theoretically, will be motivated to primarily focus on the content of the messages, thus,
they will process the advertisements through systematic processing. For low political
involvement individuals, they will process the advertisements through heuristic processing
because source factors (noncontent cues or superficial imagery) have a greater impact on
recall than message factors (content cues or substantive material).

When applying the basis of the HSM to political advertisements, it is expected
that, high involvement individuals, given that their main focus of processing is on
substantive material (content cues), will process more substantive material fiom the
advertisements than low involvement individuals. Further, it is expected that, low
involvement individuals, given that their main focus of processing is on superficial imagery
(noncontent cues), will process more superficial imagery than high involvement

individuals. Therefore, for all advertisements, the following hypotheses are derived:

H1: Individuals with higher levels of political involvement will recall more
substantive material than individuals with lower levels of political

involvement.

28

H2: Individuals with lower levels of political involvement will recall more

superficial imagery than individuals with higher levels of political

involvement.

Additional hypotheses can be derived when considering the HSM with the
theoretical concept of soft and hard messages. For high involvement individuals, it is
expected that they would recall about the same amount of information fiom both soft and
hard messages because their higher level of involvement would motivate them to
systematically process as much information as possible, regardless of the message
condition. High involvement individuals in both the hard and soft message conditions will
have their primary focus on the content of the message (both message conditions have the
same amount of issue information) and will also have secondary attention on the
noncontent cues or superficial imagery. Thus, high involvement individuals will process
both substantive material and superficial imagery from both soft and hard message
conditions because of their high motivation. This explanation applies equally to both
substantive material and superficial imagery so that the focus of this hypothesis concerns
total information recalled.

For the low involvement individuals, they should be more motivated to
heuristically process noncontent cues or superficial imagery as they focus on the source
factors more so than the message factors. As a result, low involvement individuals should
process more total information from the soft messages, which have been constructed to

have more superficial imagery, than from the hard messages, which have been constructed

29

to have more substantive material. Given this, there is a contingent interaction effect

predicted, such that:

H3a: For high political involvement individuals, recall of total information
(substantive material and superficial imagery) will be about the same for the

hard message condition and the soft message condition.

H3b: For low political involvement individuals, recall of total information
(substantive material and superficial imagery) will be greater in the soft

message condition than in the hard message condition.

When considering the HSM and the television and radio advertisement conditions
additional hypotheses are also derived. Given that the television advertisements visually
convey more superficial imagery, it is expected that more superficial imagery will be
processed fi'om the television advertisements than from the radio advertisements. As there
is less superficially imagery conveyed in the radio advertisements, individuals will give
more attention to the substantive material presented. Therefore, it is expected that more
substantive material will be processed fiom the radio advertisements than fiom the

television advertisements. Given this, the following hypotheses are presented:

H4a: Both high and low political involvement individuals will recall more
superficial imagery from television advertisements than from radio

advertisements.

H4b: Both high and low political involvement individuals will recall more
substantive material from radio advertisements than fiom television

advertisements.

Finally, given the different findings of candidate evaluations from previous studies,
one research question concerning the evaluations of the candidates must be asked:
RQI: In general, will there be more positive evaluations of the candidate

resulting from the soft message advertisements or from the hard message advertisements?

Summgy of Research Hypotheses

The foregoing arguments suggest a foundation for cognitive processing of
information in political advertisements in which one’s level of political involvement will
determine one’s recall of superficial imagery and substantive material from the political
advertisements. Additionally, political advertisements constructed in terms of hard
messages (substantive material) and soft messages (superficial imagery) are tested
independently as well as together (total information) to determine any differences in

cognitive processing. Further, both these hard and soft messages are presented through

the television and radio mediums in which processing of superficial imagery and
substantive material are tested.

In general it is predicted that individuals with high political involvement will
process more substantive material and that individuals with low political involvement will
process more superficial imagery. Additionally, it is predicted that there is a contingent
interaction effect with message condition, such that while high political involvement
individuals will process equal amounts of total information in hard messages as compared
to soft messages, low political involvement individuals will process more total information
from the soft messages as compared to hard messages. Lastly, when making comparisons
between the television advertisements and the radio advertisements, it is predicted that,
regardless of political involvement, individuals will process more superficial imagery from
the television advertisements as compared to the radio advertisements and that individuals
will process more substantive material from the radio advertisements as compared to the

television advertisements.

Chapter 4
METHODS
cm

This study attempts to examine to what degree individuals cognitively process
superficial imagery and substantive material in political advertisements. The methods used
in this 2 x 2 x 2 design (political involvement by message type by medium) provide the
opportunity to examine the cognitive processing of high and low political involvement
individuals for both hard and soft message conditions as well as for television and radio
advertisement conditions.

This study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase (issue and message
pretesting), political issues were pretested in terms of their degree of personal importance.
Of the twenty-five political issues initially pretested, five issues for which the degree of
importance was fairly evenly distributed (7-point Likert scale between ‘Very important” to
“very unimportant”) were selected for further pretesting. The goal of Phase 1 was to
detennine which issues were important and then create appropriate messages which
polarized the subjects in terms of their personal importance and favorability. The rationale
for this polarization was to maximize the probability of achieving differences between
subjects. Additionally, the researcher could also eliminate the possibility that the
consistently important and favorable issues confounded with treatment effects produced in

Phase 2 (data collection). Therefore, by having students’ favorability and personal

32

importance generally polarized between the ends of the two continuums of importance and
favorability, the risk of having the specific issue presented in the advertisement diminish
treatment impact (by either having the majority of students feel very strongly for or against
the issue or having students feel neutral toward the issue) was also minimized.

In Phase 2, 233 experimental participants either viewed or listened to one of four
political advertisements and then were given a questionnaire to answer based on their
reactions to the advertisement to which each participant was exposed.

Phase I: Pretest of Stimulus MM

Research participants. A total of 81 subjects participated in this phase of the
study. In Round 1 (political issue selection) and Round 2 (political message assessment),
subjects were students from a large midwestem university. In both Rounds 1 and 2
students were told that a local politician was interested in their reactions to the issues or
messages presented.

Procedures. In Round 1, subjects (n = 53) were told that a State House
Representative was trying to assess which political issues were most important to students
on campus. Subjects were asked to evaluate 25 political issues based on the degree of
personal importance. This procedure took about five minutes in length.

In Round 2, subjects (n = 28) were told that a local politician was interested in
their reaction to actual political messages. Five political messages (varying in terms of
hard and soft message quality) were presented to each subject. In addition to assessing

individual importance and favorability toward each message, subjects also evaluated the

34

messages in terms of specific hard-soft message attributes. This procedure took about 12
minutes in length.

Measurement instruments. For Round 1, the survey consisted of 25 political issues
which were selected in terms of being either hot local topics (e.g., stricter divorce laws),
typical political issues (e.g., comprehensive health care coverage), or specifically student-
oriented concerns that could be made into local political issues (e.g., easier access to
student financial aid). See Appendix B for a complete list. Students were asked to judge
each issue in terms of how personally important that issue is to them. The degree of
importance was assessed with a 7-point Likert type scale ( l = “very important” and 7 =
‘yery unimportant”).

For Round 2, the survey consisted of five messages (as determined by a polarized
distribution of importance assessed in Round 1). In addition to assessing personal
importance and favorability toward each message, the messages needed to be examined in
terms of their hard and soft message qualities. To do so, three concepts were developed
into three sets of semantic differentials (i.e., hard - soft, warrnhearted - cold-hearted, and
emotional - rational). The four variations of the messages that were assessed consisted of
two manipulations of hard messages and two manipulations of soft messages.

Ha_rd and soft messages - Round 2 only. After analyzing the results of Round 1,
five issues were selected for message development. For each of these five issues, both
hard and soft messages were constructed for firrther testing. Two types of soft messages
were created for all five issues. For both variations of soft messages, a “caring” rationale

was used by the candidate, such as “Because I care about the residents of the XXXXX

35

area, or because I understand the value of strong families.” In addition to the soft
messages having the “caring” rationale, one variation of these messages also used softer
verbs and helping verbs, such as “I want to look into ...” and “I want to see ...” The other
variation of the “caring” rationale message used typical political advertisement verbs such
as W and f_av_or. A firll review of the messages tested is presented in Appendix C.

Similarly, the hard messages were also constructed to have two variations of
messages. For both variations of the hard messages, a “good policy” rationale was used
by the candidate, such as “Because preventative health care saves taxpayers money,
and “. . .because such laws are a practical means of maintaining family units.” In addition
to the “good policy” rationale, one of the hard message variations also used harder (more
action-oriented verbs) verbs, such as, “I’m in favor of instituting...” and “I want to enact
legislation...” The other variation of the “good policy” rationale message used typical
political advertisement verbs such as sapm and f_av_or.

Results. The results of Round 2 indicated that the hard and soft messages using

 

the harder and softer verbs in addition to the “good policy” and “caring” rationale were
more distinct from one another than the‘hard and soft messages that used only the “good
policy” and “caring” rationale with the typical political advertisement verbs of s_upp9_r_t and
fair); Therefore, the following results apply only to the set of messages that have the
harder and softer verbs in combination with the to the “caring” and good policy”
rationales.

When analyzing the responses concerning the degree of importance and

favorability, those messages which responses were most evenly distributed were the

36

messages concerning benefits for domestic partners, stricter divorce laws, and support for
physician-assisted suicide. Additionally, the results of the semantic differentials indicated
that there was only a significant difference between the hard message version and the soft
message version concerning the topic of benefits for domestic partners [t = -2.61, df = 12,
p = .023 (14)]. However, when considering only two of the three semantic differentials
(soft-hard and emotional-rational), the soft and hard messages concerning domestic
partners were still significantly different [t = -2.33, df = 12, p = .038 (14)], and the other
two messages concerning divorce laws and physician-assisted suicide were closer to
achieving a significant difference between their hard and soft message counterparts, for
stricter divorce laws [t = -2.03, df = 12, p = .065 (14)]; and for physician-assisted suicide
[t = -I .84, df = 12, p = .091 (14)]. However, when considering the small sample size, the
results are very encouraging in that these messages appear to represent soft and hard
dimensions.
Phase 2: Dat_a Collection

Researcapanicm. A total of 233 subjects from a large midwestem university
participated in this study. At first, students from two undergraduate classes were offered
the opportunity to participate in the study. However, due to the initial turnout rate of
subjects to their designated participation time (about 60%), three additional classes were
approached for their participation in the study. Therefore, a total of five different
undergraduate communication classes offered to have their students participate in the

study (a total of 380 students were given the opportunity to participate in the study).

37

Students were told that a local politician was interested in their reactions to
political advertisements. For all the classes, extra-credit was offered to the students who
elected to participate in the study. Further, it was made clear that if a student did not want
to participate in the study, he or she could complete an alternative extra-credit assignment.

Procedures. Announcements concerning the opportunity to participate in this
political advertisement study were made to the five undergraduate classes. Students were
told of the general purpose of the study (that a local politician wanted their reaction to
political advertisements) and were instructed that if they were interested they could sign
up for a time to participate in the study. Sign-up sheets were brought to each class the
day of the announcement to facilitate student sign up and were then posted in an easy-to-
find location in order to allow students to sign up to participate if they had not already
done so. Per each session of the study there was only a maximum of 13 students allowed
(this maximum number was allowing for some “no shows” as the desired number per
group was 10 - 12). Opportunities to participate were offered through many time slots
over a two and a half week period so that students would have the opportunity to choose
a time to participate that was convenient for them. The students were also instructed as to
which room in the building they must go for the study and that they must arrive on time as
the study would promptly start at the designated time.

Each of the sessions (groups) for the study were randomly assigned to one of the
four treatments. The initial random assignment of the sessions was disrupted on the
second day of data collection due to a bomb threat in the building. As there was no way

of knowing what time individuals, who were not the trainers of bomb-sniffing dogs, would

38

be allowed into the building again, all of the sessions for that day were canceled. The
students who were scheduled for those sessions were telephoned that evening and (based
on their preference) were either resigned up during the phone call or were asked to resign
up (by visiting the posted sign-up sheets) if they were still interested in participating.

Toward the very end of the data collection period, sessions were assigned to
treatment groups based on the expected number of participants. This type of calculated
assignment of treatment to sessions was executed so that the four treatment groups would
be as comparable in size as possible. This method worked very well, three of the
treatment groups received 58 participants each and the other treatment group received 59
participants. In total, there were 28 sessions, averaging about 8 subjects per session.

As subjects arrived for each session, their names were checked with the sign-up
sheet. Any students showing up to a session who were not already signed up were asked
to wait, they were allowed to participate if all the slots during that session were not filled.
Each session began with briefly informing subjects as to the purpose of the study. Each
subject was given a consent form to complete. Consent forms stated that the student’s
participation was completely voluntary and that by signing the consent form each student
was indicating his or her interest to participate in the study. Subjects were also informed
that their responses were completely anonymous and confidential and that the consent
form would only be used to issue them their extra credit. Forms were collected when all
subjects had finished reading and signing their form.

Next, the general procedures of the study were briefly explained to the subjects.

Subjects were told that they were to complete the first page of the questionnaire (and only

39

the first page until given firrther instructions), and then wait quietly until all others were
finished with the first page (political involvement items). When all subjects had completed
the first page, they were either presented with a television advertisement or a radio
advertisement. The message was presented to the participants, and then after a short
break (about a minute, during which the message was rewound), the message was
presented a second time. Presenting the message a second time helped facilitate the recall
of issues and also reflected the increased exposure to advertisements which occurs during
elections. Subjects were then instructed to complete the rest of the questionnaire (general
reactions to the political advertisement) and to once again wait quietly until all others had
also finished. After all subjects had completed the entire questionnaire, questionnaires
were collected and subjects were debriefed as to the purpose of the study.

Stimulus materials. The stimulus materials consisted of four advertisements (two
radio advertisements and two television advertisements). In total, two scripts were
designed for the advertisements. The two radio advertisements were created from the
soundtracks of the two television advertisements. For a complete reading of the
advertisement scripts (soft and hard messages), please see Appendix A.

After pretesting the messages as described in the Message Pretesting section, the
hard message versions of the three selected issues (stricter divorce laws, physician-assisted
suicide, and benefits for domestic partners) were combined to form one advertisement,
while the soft versions of the same issues were combined to form another advertisement.
Each hard and soft advertisement was then given beginning and concluding sentences.

Although they were similar in structure, the differences in the beginning and concluding

4O

sentences between the hard and soft advertisements were determined by the rationale of
the advertisement, such that the soft message (“caring” rationale) received beginning and
concluding sentences that indicated the candidate’s caring, while the hard message (“good
policy” rationale) received beginning and concluding sentences that indicated the
candidate was a tough decision-maker.

A video consultant was hired for the filming of the television advertisements and
also for creating the radio advertisements fiom the television soundtrack. An individual
was selected to act as the candidate for these advertisements. The candidate was selected
based on his physical characteristics; the candidate was fi'ee of any physical and verbal
quirks that could pose as a distraction to either the viewing or listening audience. In order
to minimize differences between the delivery of the hard and soft message, the actor was
coached as to his delivery of the two messages. The candidate wore a typical candidate’s
attire (dark suit, white shirt and a maroon-colored conservative tie). The candidate was
filmed from his chest up and the background used in the filming was gray. After filming
was complete, the radio advertisements were constructed from the television
advertisements’ soundtracks and backup tapes for all for advertisements were created.

Manipulation check. A manipulation check was conducted to determine if
subjects’ perceptions of the soft and hard message advertisements correctly corresponded
to the basis of their construction, and if the messages were significantly different. One
thought-listing variable (called manipulation check) was coded based on to what degree
the respondent thought that the candidate was either a “caring” individual or a “tough

decision-maker.” When comparing this item between the soft and hard message groups, t-

41

test results indicate that there is a significant difference between perceptions of the
messages as consistent with message development [t = 19.42, df = 231, p = .0001 (233)].
As designed, individuals presented with the soft messages perceived the candidate as
caring [M = 4.25, sd = .96 (117)] and that individuals presented with the hard messages
perceived the candidate as a tough decision-maker [M = 1.78, sd = .98 (116)].

Further, other items also served to determine the degree to which respondents
perceived the hard and soft messages to be similar to a variety of soft-hard dimension

items. The results of these t-tests are presented in Table l.

42

Table 1

Means and T-test Results for Compassion, Caring, Hearted, Rational, Smpathy, and Soft

 

Item Mean ad Subjects t-value df p

Compassionate 3.91 220 .000
Soft Message 4.87 1.34 117
Hard Message 4.19 1.25 105

Caring 3.76 217 .000
Soft Message 5.05 1.35 117
Hard Message 4.38 1.27 102

Warm-Hearted 3.43 219 .001
Soft Message 4.80 1.21 117
Hard Message 4.26 1.14 104

Rational‘ 0.76 225 .451
Soft Message 3.52 1.56 116
Hard Message 3.37 1.38 111

Sympathetic 3.68 225 .000
Soft Message 4.93 1.45 117
Hard Message 4.23 1.43 110

Soft 4.37 214 .000
Soft Message 4.61 1.31 113
Hard Message 3.83 1.33 103

Note: These items have all been scored a “7,” and their opposites uncompassionate,
uncaring, cold-hearted, emotional, unsympathetic, and hard have all been coded a “l

* There was not a significant difference between the hard and soft messages, and given
that it may have been diflicult for respondents to judge the candidate on the emotional-
rational semantic differential as they may not have seen that candidate as either of these,
this result is not surprising.

These results indicate that individuals in the soft message condition rated the

candidate as more compassionate, caring, warm-hearted, sympathetic, and soft, whereas

by comparison, in the hard message condition individuals rated the candidate as more

uncompassionate, uncaring, cold-hearted, unsympathetic, and hard. Although the
differences between the soft and hard message conditions are statistically significant, it is
important to note that the low magnitude of difference between the messages (average
difference between conditions is .59) may indicate that it is not a powerful manipulation.

Measurement instrument. The measurement instrument consists of two sections.
The first section (and also the first page) presents eighteen, 5-point Likert type questions,
which were designed to measure political involvement. The first set of these political
involvement items attempts to measure the respondent’s psychological (political)
involvement, whereas the second set of the political involvement items attempts to
measure the respondent’s behavioral (political) involvement. Subjects complete this first
section of the questionnaire before they are presented the political advertisement.

The second section of the measurement instrument consists of a variety of items
attempting to measure the respondent’s recall of information presented in the
advertisement, such as thought-listing and true/false questions, as well as opinion-oriented
items, such as semantic differentials. Additionally, a variety of items attempt to assess the
respondent’s party affiliation and past voting behavior as well as his or her general
demographic characteristics. After subjects have been exposed to the political
advertisement, they are asked to complete this second section of the questionnaire.

In order to assure understandability of the questions and to determine the amount
of space needed for the thought-listing items, the questionnaire was pretested (the soft

message television advertisement was shown). The results of the pretest indicated that all

44

items were clear and that there was plenty of space provided for the thought listing task.
A complete review of the measurement instrument is presented in Appendix D.
Codingprocedures. There were three items on the questionnaire that required
respondents to either describe or list their responses. Given the specific goal of this
thought-listing section (to measure the recall of superficial imagery and substantive
material), specific categorical responses were searched for. The responses that were
sought included 1) a check to see if the manipulation worked (that the respondent would
mention that was either “caring” individual or “tough decision-maker”) (called
manipulation check), 2) a brief description of the issues presented (divided into three
sections pertaining to the three issues) (called divorce, partner, suicide), 3) any additional
listing of an issue-oriented response (e.g., “he’s a family-oriented guy”) (called additional
issues), and 4) any listing of information which concerned the candidate’s image or
characteristics (called superficial imagery). Even though there were three distinct issues
per message (stricter divorce laws, physician-assisted suicide, and benefits for domestic
partners), the rationale as well as the beginning and concluding sentences provided
additional issue content which respondents could potentially recall. Thought-listing items
were coded based on the categories of manipulation check, divorce, partner, suicide, and
additional issues. Appendix E presents a detailed description of the coding scheme.
Independent measures. Political involvement was measured with eighteen items,
the first set of ten items inquired about psychological involvement (e.g., interest in politics,
interest in following campaigns), while the second set of eight items inquired about

behavioral involvement (e.g., volunteering time to work on a campaign, trying to persuade

45

others to vote for one candidate over the other). Based on their item content, all eighteen
items appear to have face validity.

Although the standardized item alpha was very good for the initial 18 items, or =
.93, firrther tests were employed to determine the validity of the scale. The initial eighteen
items were subjected to tests of internal consistency to determine which item’s errors were
greater than sampling error. After several runs to determine the best fit of the items, four
items were eliminated from the original eighteen (items eliminated were #6, #10, #13, and
#14). The percent of items for which the error is greater than sampling error is five
percent which fits into the acceptable range of error.

There was some initial concern with eliminating items #13 and #14 (“I’ve donated
money to a candidate or a campaign” and “I’ve distributed campaign materials for a
candidate,” respectively) as these items were the most extreme in measuring political
behaviors, and subsequently would help determine individuals with high political
involvement. Given this concern, additional analyses were conducted to assess to what
degree individuals in the high involvement group would be lost to the low involvement
group when questions #13 and #14 were eliminated. However, due to the content of
question #15 (“I’ve volunteered my time for a candidate to work on a campaign”), all but
one individual remained in the high political involvement group compared to the analysis
without questions #13 and #14. Therefore, it was determined that there should be no
concern with eliminating items #13 and #14 in terms of losing behavioral political
involvement content in the questionnaire. The standardized item alpha for this 14-item

political involvement scale remains very good, or = .93.

46

Confirrnatory factor analysis was then performed on this l4-item political
involvement scale to firrther determine internal consistency. Results of the factor analysis
indicated that these items sufficiently measured the same construct. The factor loadings
are presented in Appendix F. Given the factor loadings and the percentage of items for
which error was greater than sampling error, it appears that the l4-item political
involvement scale has internal consistency.

When considering the two subscales of psychological political involvement and
behavioral political involvement, reliabilities of each also appeared to be very good. For
the new 8-item psychological subscale, standardized item alpha was very strong at, or =
.91; and for the new 6-item behavioral involvement subscale, standardized item alpha was
fairly strong at, or = .81. Additionally, these two subscales correlate well with one
another, r = .76 (233), p = .0001.

To establish high and low political involvement groups, the 14-item political
involvement scale was dichotomized into high and low involvement based on a median-
split [median = 2.714, sd = .713 (233)]. Those individuals whose involvement score was
greater than 2.714 were grouped into the “high involvement” group (n = 118); those
individuals whose involvement score was less than 2.714 were grouped into the “low
involvement” group (n = 115).

Dependent measures. Substantive material was measured by creating one scale
composed of two main sets of items (thought listing and true/false questions) which
measured the substantive material recalled by the respondent. Given the nature of

substantive material, such that direct questions concerning the content could be asked in

47

addition to thought listing, multiple methods for measuring this recall were employed.
When considering the thought-listing items, substantive material was coded based on the
respondent’s recall of the issues that the candidate presented in the advertisement.
Thoughts listed by subjects were coded based on the three issues (divorce, partner, and
suicide) that were presented in the advertisements. The reliability of this substantive
material scale composed of these three recalled issues is acceptable with the standardized
item alpha or = .60. Given that this scale represents the accuracy of which the issues in the
advertisements were recalled it is expected that the reliability for such a scale would be
moderately low.

Another thought-listing item which was added into the overall substantive material
scale represents the number of additional issues (substantive material) recalled that were
not previously coded based on the recall of the three issues. As this is a one-item
measure, no reliability can be calculated.

Based on the true/false items which asked specific questions about the issues
presented in the advertisements, another scale was formed that measured the degree to
which a respondent answered all questions correctly. Although the content for the
advertisements was different (hard message versus soft message), thus creating different
sets of correct answers for the true/false questions, one scale to compare all individuals
was created. The correct answers (whether true or false) for the specific message were
recoded in the same direction to create a score for those items. As there were two
message groups, this was performed for both the soft and hard message groups

independently. Combining these sets of independent scores created one scale that

48

accurately measured the correct information recalled based on the message that was
presented. Given that this scale is composed of items that measure the accuracy of
recalled substantive material from the advertisements, it is expected that the reliability for
the scale will also be moderately low, as the reliability would depend more upon
respondents’ correct recall of all three issues presented in the advertisements. Based on
combining the four treatment groups into the categories of soft messages and hard
messages, the standardized item alphas are as follows: Soft Messages, or = .45; Hard
Messages, or = .53. Although these alphas are low, this is still a fair measure given that
individuals may recall more from one issue than from another.

In order to create one general measure (a combination of the thought-listing and
true/false items) to measure the substantive material recalled, one scale was created by
summing the true/false scale with the scores item the thought-listing items. This is the
scale that is used to measure substantive material. The reliability of this general
substantive material scale is or = .53. Although this reliability is only moderate, internal
consistency tests indicate that all item errors were within sampling error. Additionally,
exploratory factor analysis was then performed on these items to determine how well they
were measuring the same construct. The factor loadings are presented in Appendix G.

Given the nature of superficial imagery, such that it should be a pure measure of
the individual’s impression of the candidate’s image and not one that is prompted by the
questionnaire, there was only one available means of measuring respondent’s recall of
superficial imagery. Superficial imagery was measured by asking the respondent to list

characteristics of the candidate that he or she could remember. Such characteristics (e.g.,

49

nice looking, smart, middle-aged) were coded based on how many were listed. Given that
other items inquiring about superficial imagery may prompt the respondent (e.g., “How
trustworthy is the candidate?”), measuring superficial imagery stands as a one-item
measure, therefore, no reliability can be calculated.

Total recall (combining all of the measures for superficial imagery and substantive
material) is derived by adding together the superficial imagery measure to the substantive
material scale. Given that this total recall measure is potentially combining theoretically
opposite constructs (substantive material and superficial imagery), the reliability of this
scale is expected to be fairly low, standardized item alpha or = .44. Internal consistency
tests indicate that 26 percent of the items have errors which are greater than sarnpling
error. However, as this total recall scale is designed to measure recall of both superficial
imagery and substantive material, such error is expected and acceptable. Additionally,
exploratory factor analysis was performed. Once again, given that total recall measures
the recall of both substantive material and superficial imagery, it is not surprising that
some of the items, specifically additional issues and superficial imagery, have low factor

loadings. The factor loadings for total recall are presented in Appendix H.

Chapter 5
RESULTS

Overview

This section begins with a general description of the profile of the participants and
a profile of the perceptions of the actor who was used as the political candidate in the
advertisements. This is followed by the findings and explanation of the findings for each
of the hypotheses and the research question. For each of the hypotheses, the findings are
initially presented with the entire population, but given that the nature of this study
essentially deals with the United States political system, subsequent analyses are
performed with using only the United States citizen population (N = 221). Additional
analyses were also conducted on other variables, such as, those who voted in the last
presidential election, as well as males and females.
Profile of Research Participants

The 233 subjects in this study consisted of 158 women and 75 men. Ninety-five
percent of the participants were between 18 and 26 years of age, with an average age of
22 years (sd = 3.68). The remaining 5% of participants were between 27 and 50 years of
age. Most of the participants were Caucasian (82%), 7% were Asian, 6% were Afiican
American, 2% were Hispanic, 3% indicated “other,” and 2 subjects did not respond to that
question. Of the 233 subjects, 43% were seniors, 41% were juniors, 14% were
sophomores, 1% were fi'eshman, one subject (0.4 %) indicated graduate student, and two

subjects did not respond to that question.

50

51

Ninety-five percent of the subjects are United States citizens, and 84% of them are
registered to vote. F ifty-seven percent of the subjects voted in the last presidential
election (November, 1996). Over a third of the participants stated that they are
Democratic (39%), 31% are Republican, 16% are Independent, 3% are Libertarian, 9%
indicated that they are “other,” and 2% did not answer the question. When asked about
how they consider themselves politically, about half of the subjects considered themselves
“moderate” (53%), 30% considered themselves “liberal,” 16% considered themselves
“conservative,” and 1% did not answer the question.

Profile of the Political Candidate

To make sure that findings in the hypotheses are not due to any extreme
evaluations of the candidate, it is important to looked at respondents’ evaluations of the
candidate on specific items. This evaluation is based on several semantic differentials. In
addition to the means and standard deviations, Table 2 also presents the percentage of
participants who either expressed their neutrality on the item by (responding with a “4”) or

left that item blank.

52

Table 2

Descriptive Data on Semantic Differential Scales

 

 

Dimension M g % natrked 4 or left blag
Trustworthy 4.48 1 .36 29.2
Qualified 3 .97 1.31 43.8
Honest 4.61 1.30 33.9
Sincere 4.60 1.52 17.6
Attractive 3 .78 1 .27 48.5
Friendly 4.47 1.30 26.6
Experienced 3 .65 1.27 45.1
Knowledgeable 4.32 1.23 36. 1
Competent 4.49 1 .61 37.8
Intelligent 4.68 1.05 37.4

Note: All items shown were coded toward the higher end of the scale “7” and their
opposites (e.g., untrustworthy, unqualified, etc.) were coded at the lower end of the scale

..1 .”
For several items (those with 30% or more respondents who marked “4” or left
item blank), respondents were not very involved in the task of evaluating the candidate.
As a result, such responses of “4” or leaving item blank impacted the overall mean for
those items. However, in general, it is important to note that these items did not have
many extreme evaluations of the candidate as most of the responses were normally
distributed around the mean. Therefore, based on these results, it can be assumed that the
overall findings will not be influenced by any extreme evaluations of the candidate.
Additionally, t-tests were conducted to determine that there were no significant
differences between high and low political involvement groups as well as between soft
message and hard message advertisement groups on these items. When comparing the

high and low political involvement groups no significant differences were found. When

comparing the soft and hard message advertisement groups, there were significant
differences found with the semantic differential items of fiiendly [t = 2.93, df = 222, p =
.004 (224)] and experienced [t = -2.25, df = 210, p = .025 (212)]. For the item of
fiiendly, evaluations in the soft message condition [M = 4.71, sd = 1.24 (115)] were
higher than for the hard message condition [M = 4.21, sd = 1.32 (109)]. For the item of
experienced, evaluations in the hard message condition [M = 3.85, sd = 1.32 (102)] were
higher than for the soft message condition [M = 3.46, sd = 1.19 (110)]. In general,
individuals in both the soft and hard message conditions thought that the candidate was
more fiiendly than unfiiendly and also thought that the candidate was less experienced
than experienced.

When looking at each item specifically, there is good reason for the significant
difference. For the item of fiiendly, it seems reasonable that individuals viewing the soft
message (in which the candidate presents a “caring” rationale) would be more likely to
judge the candidate as fiiendly than in the hard message condition in which the candidate
presents a “tough decision-maker” rationale. Similarly, for the item of experienced, it
seems reasonable that individuals viewing the hard message would be more likely to judge
the candidate as more experienced as he offers a “tough decision-maker” rationale
opposed to a “caring” rationale. In general, these data indicate that the candidate’s
characteristics did not provide reason for crucial differences between relevant groups.
Hypotheses for All Advertisements

mag. Hypothesis I predicted that individuals with higher levels of

political involvement would process more substantive material than individuals with lower

54

levels of political involvement. To examine this prediction, 3 t-test was performed to
determine if there were significant differences in recall of substantive material between
high and low political involvement individuals. Although the high involvement group

[M = 11.30, sd = 2.78 (118)] processed slightly more substantive material than the low
involvement group [M = 11.07, sd = 2.82 (115)], there was not a significant difference

[t = -.63, df = 231, p = .532 ( 233)]. Therefore, these data fiom the overall sample do not
support this hypothesis.

For the subset of subjects who indicated that they were United States citizens, the
results differ from the overall sample. Again, high involvement individuals [M = 11.61,
sd = 2.35 (1 13)] processed slightly more substantive material than low involvement
individuals [M = 11.12, sd = 2.76 (108)]. Even though the difference doubled as it
increased fiom .23 of a point (overall sample) to .49 (United States population), there was
still not a significant difference [t = -1.43, df= 219, p = .154 (221)].

In addition, recall of substantive material was separated to test for differences
between the high and low involvement groups on the thought-listing measures as well as
on the true/false items. For the thought-listing items, although high involvement
individuals recalled more substantive material [M = 9.10, sd = 2.30 (113)] than the low
involvement individuals [M = 8.62, sd = 2.71 (108)], there was not a significant difference
[t = -1.41, df = 219, p = .159 (221 )1. Similarly, for the true/false substantive items,
although the high involvement individuals processed slightly more [M = 2.51, sd = .223
(113)] than the low involvement individuals [M = 2.50, sd = .238 (108)], there was not a

significant difference [t = -.48, df= 219, p = .632 (221)].

55

Additionally, analysis of covariance, which analyzed the effects of political
involvement on recall of substantive material after removing sex, was performed. The
results indicated that although the effects of political involvement on recall of substantive
material increased, the effect was not significant F (1, 220) = 2.77; p = .098.

Further analyses were conducted by trichotomizing political involvement (bottom
third < 2.429, top third > 2.929). These high involvement individuals [M = 11.85, sd =
2.35 (69)] processed significantly more substantive material than the low involvement
individuals [M = 10.87, sd = 2.72 (81)], with [t = -2.37, df= 148, p = .019 (150)]. Recall
of substantive material was also separated into thought-listing and true/false measures to
test for differences. For the thought-listing items, high involvement individuals recalled
significantly more substantive material [M = 9.33, sd = 2.32 (69)] than the low
involvement individuals [M = 8.37, sd = 2.67 (81)], with [t = -2.36, df= 148, p = .02
(150)]. However, for the true/false items, although the high involvement group [M =
2.52, sd = .203 (69)] recalled more than the low involvement group [M = 2.50, sd =.245
(81)], there was not a significant difference [t = -.52, df = 148, p = .607].

Finally, correlational analyses were conducted to describe the degree of
relationship. Political involvement correlated significantly with recall of substantive
material [r = .15 (221), at p = .03], however it is important to mention that this is a weak
correlation. Additionally, separate correlations for political involvement and recall of
substantive material were performed for males and females. When correlating political
involvement with recall of substantive material, there was not a significant correlation for

males [r = .09 (70), at p = .471], however, there was a significant correlation for females

56

[r = .21 (151), at p = .01 1]. When firrther considering the separate measures of
substantive material with females, there was a significant correlation with the thought-
listing items [r = .20 (151), at p = .013].

In general, the data support the hypothesis. When using the high and low
involvement individuals based on trichotomizing political involvement, both the general
recall of substantive material as well as the thought-listing measures produced significant
results.

Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 predicted that individuals with lower levels of political
involvement would process more superficial imagery than individuals with higher levels of
political involvement. To examine this prediction, a t-test was performed to determine if
there were significant differences in recall of superficial imagery between high and low
involvement individuals. Although the difference was not significant [t = -.39, df = 231,

p = .693 (233)], opposite results occurred as the high involvement group [M = 3.03, sd =
2.30 (118)] processed slightly more superficial imagery than the low involvement group
[M = 2.90, sd = 2.38 (115)]. Therefore, these data from the overall sample do not
support this hypothesis.

Supplemental analyses were performed using only the subjects who indicated that
they were United States citizens. However, when testing Hypothesis 2, the results did not
improve. High involvement individuals [M = 3.04, sd = 2.30 (113)] still processed slightly
more superficial imagery than the low involvement group [M = 2.97, sd = 2.39 (108)],
however, there was still not a significant difference [t = -.20, df = 219, p = .841 (221)].

Additionally, individuals in the television condition were analyzed separately

57

because the radio condition could be diminishing the relationship between political
involvement and recall of superficial imagery. For the television condition, the t-tests
between the high and low involvement groups revealed that for superficial imagery, the
high involvement group still processed more [M = 4.62, sd = 2.03 (50)] than the low
involvement group [M = 4.30, sd = 2.12 (61 ), but the difference was not significant [t =
-.82, df= 106, p = .412 (111)].

Additionally, analysis of covariance, which analyzed the effects of political
involvement on recall of superficial imagery after removing sex, was performed. The
results indicated that although the effects of political involvement on recall of substantive
material increased, the effect was still not significant F (1, 220) = .327; p = .568.

Further analyses were conducted with the trichotomized political involvement. As
the high involvement individuals [M = 3.01, sd = 2.40 (69)] processed about the same
amount as the low involvement individuals [M = 3.05, sd = 2.49 (81)], the difference was
not significant [t = .09, df= 146, p = .931 (150)].

Additionally, individuals in the television group were further considered with the
trichotomized political involvement. T-tests between the high and low involvement
groups revealed that the high involvement group [M = 4.74, sd = 2.19 (31)] did recall
more than the low involvement group [M = 4.59, sd = 2.11 (44), but the results were not
significant [t = -.30, df= 63, p = .77].

Finally, correlational analyses were conducted to describe the degree of
relationship. Political involvement failed to significantly correlate with recall of superficial

imagery [r = -.03 (221), at p = .634]. Separate correlations for political involvement and

58

recall of superficial imagery were performed for males and females. When correlating
political involvement with recall of superficial imagery, there was not a significant
correlation for males [r = -.04 (70), at p = .761], likewise, there was not a significant
correlation for females [r = .01 (151), at p = .864]. In general, these data do not support
the hypothesis.

Overall, the results of these two hypotheses indicate that there is not a definite
. relationship between political involvement and the amount of superficial imagery or
substantive material recalled from the advertisements. There is general support for
Hypothesis 1 when considering trichotomized political involvement with the United States
population. Additionally, when considering only females, the significant positive
correlation suggests that with higher levels of political involvement more substantive
material is recalled. However, there is no support for Hypothesis 2.
Hypotheses for Soft Message and Hard Message Advertisemen_t§

Hypotheses 3a_and 3b. To initially test the predicted contingent interaction of
Hypotheses 3a and 3b, analysis of variance (ANOVA), which analyzed the effects of
political involvement and message condition on recall of total information, was performed.
The main effect for the soft and hard message conditions was not significant, F (1, 232) =
.05; p = .818. Additionally, the main effect for political involvement was also not
significant, E (I, 23 2) = .52; p = .474. Further, there were no two-way interactions
detected between political involvement and message condition, E (1, 232) = 1.142; p =

.286. Thus, the basic prediction of a contingent interaction is not supported. Means for

59

high and low political involvement groups across the hard and soft message conditions are

presented in the left column of Table 3.

Table 3

Me_ans for Total Recall, Superficial Imagery and Substantive Material.

For Entire Population

W

Soft Hard
High Political Inv. 14.54 14.14
Low Political Inv. 13.70 14.31

For United States Citizen Population

Total Recall
Soft Hard
High Political Inv. 14.78 14.53
Low Political Inv. 13.83 14.39

Recall of Imager_'y

Soft Hard
3.13 2.94
2.77 3.06

Recall of Imagegg

Soft Hard
3.15 2.93
2.88 3.08

Recall of Material

Soft Hard
11.41 1 1.21
10.92 11.25
Recall of Material
Soft Hard
11.63 11.59
10.96 1 1.31

When performing the same calculations with the United States citizen population,

similar results were found. The AN OVA revealed that there were no significant

differences between the soft and hard message conditions, E (1, 220) = .10; p = .746, or

for political involvement, E (1, 220) = 1.42; p = .235, on recall of total information. Nor

were there any two-way interactions detected between political involvement and message

condition, E (1, 220) = .79; p = .376.

60

As Hypothesis 3a offers a prediction for individuals in the high involvement group,
high involvement individuals were selected for additional examination. T-tests were
performed on just the high political involvement individuals to determine if there were
significant differences on their recall of total information between the soft and hard
message groups. As predicted, there were no significant differences in total recall between
the two message groups [t = .60, df = 116, p = .55 (118)]. The results indicated that high
political involvement individuals in the hard message group [M = 14.14, sd = 3.67, (63)]
process about the same amount of total information as high political involvement
individuals in the soft message group [M = 14.54, sd = 3.48, (55)].

Additionally, the results of the t-test with the United States population also
indicated that there were no significant differences between high involvement individuals
in the hard message group and high involvement individuals in the soft message group [t =
.42, df = 111, p = . 675 (113)]. Therefore, even given the United States citizen
population, high involvement individuals presented with the hard message [M = 14.53, sd
= 3.24, (60)] process about the same amount of total information as high involvement
individuals when presented soft messages [M = 14.78, sd = 3.17, (53)].

As Hypothesis 3b offers a prediction for individuals in the low involvement group
only, low involvement individuals were selected for additional examination. T-tests were
performed on just the low political involvement individuals to determine if there were
significant differences between their recall of total information between the soft and hard
message groups. There were no significant differences in total recall between the two

message groups [t = -.91, df= 113, p = .366 (115)]. The results indicated that low

61

political involvement individuals in the hard message group [M = 14.31, sd = 3.55, (53)]
processed slightly more total information than low political involvement individuals in the
soft message group [M = 13.70, sd = 3.69, (62)]. Although the results are not significant,
the amount of total recall is in the opposite direction as predicted.

Additionally, the results of the t-test with only the United States population also
indicated that there were no significant differences between low involvement individuals in
the soft message group and low involvement individuals in the hard message group [t =
-.81, df = 106, p = . 419 (108)]. Even when considering the United States citizen
population, low involvement individuals presented with soft messages [M = 13.83, sd =
3.60, (59)] process less total information (although not significant) than low involvement
individuals when presented hard messages [M = 14.39, sd = 3.35, (49)]. As with the
previous calculations, these results are also in the opposite direction.

Additional analyses were performed to determine if there were any differences in
recall for the components of total recall (superficial imagery and substantive material).
Item means, of the entire population and the United States citizen population, for total
recall as well as superficial imagery and substantive material based on soft and hard
message conditions and high and low involvement groups have been presented in Table 3.
For both recall of superficial imagery and recall of substantive material, as well as recall of
total information, there were no significant differences between the soft and hard message
conditions for either the entire population or the United States citizen population.

Further, analyses were conducted by separating the components of substantive material.

The t-test on the thought-listing measure of substantive material did not yield significant

————‘

62

results. For the thought-listing measure, low involvement individuals in the hard message
condition [M = 8.76, sd = 2.36 (49)] processed more than individuals in the soft message
condition [M = 8.51, sd = 2.99 (59)], with [t = -.48, df= 106, p = .633 (108)]. However,
for the true/false substantive items, low involvement individuals recalled significantly more
from the hard message condition [M = 2.55, sd = .233 (49)] than individuals in the soft
message condition [M = 2.45, sd = .235 (59)], with [t = -2.21, df= 106, p = .029 (108)].

Overall, the predicted contingent interaction is not supported, but the component
of 3a is supported. The results of two hypotheses indicate that high involvement
individuals will process about equal amounts of total information when comparing soft and
hard messages, thus these data support Hypothesis 3a. However, for low involvement
individuals, it appears as though they process slightly more information when presented
with hard messages then when presented with soft messages. For this relationship, the
differences are significant for only the true/false substantive material items. These results
for Hypothesis 3b are in the opposite direction as what was predicted and may be a result
of the low political involvement individuals responding more to the “tough decision-
maker” rationale (and thus recalling more) than the “caring” rationale. This will be
discussed firrther in the Discussion section.

Hymtheses for Television and Radio Advertisements

 

Hymthesis 4a. Hypothesis 4a predicted that both high and low involvement
individuals would recall more superficial imagery from television messages than from the
radio messages. To examine this prediction, a t-test was performed to determine if there

were significant differences between the television and radio advertisement conditions on

 

63

recall of superficial imagery. Individuals in the television condition [M = 4.35, sd = 2.12
(117)] recalled more superficial imagery than individuals in the radio condition [M = 1.57,
sd = 1.60 (116)]. When testing the difference between these means, the results indicate
that there is a significant difference between the treatment groups of television and radio
[t = 11.30, df = 231, p = .0001 (233)]. Therefore, these data are consistent with the
prediction that more superficial imagery will be recalled from television advertisements
than fi'om radio advertisements.

For the United States citizen population, the t-test results are very similar.
Individuals in the television condition [M = 4.44, sd = 2.07 (111)] recalled more
superficial imagery than individuals in the radio condition [M = 1.55, sd = 1.56 (110)].
When testing the difference between these means, the results indicated that there is a
significant difference between the treatment groups of television and radio [t = 1 1.68, df =
219, p =.0001(221)].

Hypothesis 4b. Hypothesis 4b predicted that both high and low political
involvement groups will process more substantive material from the radio advertisements
than from the television advertisements. To examine this prediction, a t-test was
conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the television and
radio advertisement conditions on recall of substantive material. As predicted, individuals
presented with the radio advertisements [M = 11.43, sd = 3.06 (116)] recalled more
substantive material than individuals presented with television advertisements [M= 10.95,
sd = 2.50 (1 17)]. However, when testing the difference between these means, the results

indicate that there is not a significant difference between the treatment groups of radio and

64

television [t = -l.31, df = 231, p = .192 (233)]. Therefore, these data do not support the
prediction that more substantive material will be recalled from the radio advertisements
than from the television advertisements.

For the United States citizen population, the t-test results are very similar.
Individuals in the radio condition [M = 11.64, sd = 2.69 (110)] recalled more substantive
material than individuals in the television condition [M = 11.10, sd = 2.41 (111)].
However, when testing the difference between these means, the results indicate that there
is not a significant difference between the treatment groups of radio and television [t =
-I .58, df = 219, p = .1 16 (221)]. Additionally, the thought-listing and true/false items for
substantive material were considered. However, consistent with the previous findings,
there were no significant differences for either the thought-listing or the true/false
measures. For the thought-listing measures, although the radio group [M = 9.15, sd =
2.64 (110)] processed more substantive material than the television group [M = 8.58, sd =
2.36 (111)], the difference was not quite significant [t = -1.72, df= 219, p = .087 (221).
For the true/false measure, the television group processed slightly more [M = 2.52, sd =
.227 (111)] than the radio group [M = 2.49, sd =.233 (110)], and the results were not
significant [t = 1.16, df= 219, p = .245 (221)].

Overall, the results of these hypotheses indicate that there is significant difference
on the amount of superficial imagery recalled between the television and radio
advertisement groups, but that there is not a significant difference on the amount of

substantive material recalled between the radio and television advertisement groups.

 

65

Research Question Regarding Candidate Evaluation.

Research question 1. The research question inquired as to which message
condition, soft or hard, would result in more positive evaluations of the candidate. In
general, for all the evaluation items, respondents in the soft and hard message conditions
evaluated the candidate similarly. Ten semantic differentials were grouped into two
groups in terms of their correspondence with the expected evaluation outcome for either
the soft messages or hard messages as based on their face validity. The items which
correspond to the soft message condition are trustworthy, honest, sincere, attractive, and
fiiendly. The items which correspond to the hard message condition are qualified,
experienced, knowledgeable, competent, and intelligent. The results of comparing the
evaluations of the soft and hard message groups based on these two semantic differential

groups is presented in Table 4.

 

66

Table 4

Means and T-tests for the Two Groups of Smantic Differential Scales.

 

1th man a M t_-_vzu_uq at p
Trustworthy .85 207 .399
Soft Message 4.58 1.39 107
Hard Message 4.42 1.31 102
Honest -I.23 201 .221
Soft Message 4.51 1.29 104
Hard Message 4.74 1.35 99
Sincere -.62 215 .534
Soft Message 4.55 1.63 111
Hard Message 4.68 1.43 106
Attractive 1.77 190 .078
Soft Message 3.96 1.22 98
Hard Message 3.64 1.29 94
Friendly 2.63 210 .009
Soft Message 4.72 1.25 1 10
Hard Message 4.25 1.32 102
Total . 93 230 .356
Soft Messages 4. 48 l. 05 l I 7
Hard Messages 4. 35 I. 03 l [5
Qualified -.69 198 .492
Soft Message 3.89 1.25 104
Hard Message 4.02 1.35 96
Experienced -2.45 198 .015
Soft Message 3.45 1.22 105
Hard Message 3.88 1.30 95
Knowledgeable -.30 203 .763
Soft Message 4.30 1.81 106
Hard Message 4.35 1.27 99
Competent -1.28 202 .201
Soft Message 4.41 1.15 105
Hard Message 4.62 1.15 99
Intelligent 1.49 207 .138
Soft Message 4.82 1.01 109
Hard Message 4.60 1.09 100
Total -. 80 226 .423
Soft Messages 4. 18 .88 1 16

Hard Messages 4. 28 1.07 l 12

_
67

Although these results are not significant, they do offer usefirl information. For the
items corresponding to soft messages, individuals in the soft message condition did
evaluate the candidate more positively than individuals in the hard message condition.
Similarly, for the items corresponding to hard messages, individuals in the hard message
condition did evaluate the candidate more positively than individuals in the soft message
condition.

However, when considering all of the items independently, individuals in the hard
message group evaluated the candidate more positively on more items than individuals in
the soft message group. Additionally, when considering the items independently, only two
items had significant differences (fiiendly and experienced, as mentioned in the candidate
profile section). These results indicate that individuals in the soft message condition
evaluated the candidate as significantly more fiicndly than individuals in the hard message
condition, and that individuals in the hard message condition evaluated the candidate as
significantly more experienced than individuals in the soft message condition.
Additionflmalyses

Additional analyses were conducted to firrther understand individuals’ recall of
substantive material and superficial imagery. More specifically, differences between those
who had voted in the last presidential election versus those who had not, and those who
are female versus those who are male were analyzed.

Voted versus did not vote. When considering possible differences between those
who voted in the last presidential election and those who did not, only for political

involvement was there a significant difference. T-tests were performed between those

68

who voted in the last presidential election and those who did not (United States citizens
only) on the variables of total recall, recall of substantive material, recall of superficial

imagery, and political involvement. Means and results of the t-tests are presented in Table

5.

Table 5

Means and T-tests for Did Not Vote and Voted on Recall of Toad Information, Refill of
Superficial Imageg, Recall of Substantive Material and Political Involvement.

 

Item Mean M Subjects t-value df p
Total Recall -.82 203 .414
Did Not Vote 14.16 3.07 88
Voted 14.52 3.52 133
Recall of Imagery I -1.01 211 .314
Did Not Vote 2.82 2.03 88
Voted 3.13 2.52 133
Recall of Material -.16 177 .876
Did Not Vote 11.34 2.68 88
Voted 11.39 2.49 133
Political Inv. -6.62 208 .0001
Did Not Vote 2.39 .59 88
Voted 2.96 . 70 133

Note: T-test results are based on unequal cell sizes. Also, the total recall and recall of
substantive material measures are calculated based on summed scores, whereas, the
political involvement scale is calculated based on averaged scores.

The only significant difference between those who voted and those who did not

vote was for the variable of political involvement. In general, these results are consistent

with logical expectations, such that the more politically involved one is, the more likely he

69

or she will be to vote in major political elections. However, it would also be expected that
because those who voted are more politically involved that they also should process more
substantive material than those who are less involved. One explanation for why this is not
the case, may be due to the laboratory nature of the study, such that subjects were
presented the advertisement twice and they were prompted to pay attention to the
advertisement.

Macs versus feraalg. When considering the differences between males and
females in terms of political involvement and recall, the results are very interesting. T-
tests were conducted to determine if there were any initial differences between males and
females for recall of total information, recall of superficial imagery, recall of substantive
material, and political involvement (United States citizen population). There were
significant differences between males and females on three of the four variables. The

results are presented in Table 6.

70

Table 6

Means and T-tests for Males and Fanales on Recall of Tomnfomaiom Recall of
Superficial Imagery, Recall of Substaative Material and Political Involvement

 

Item Mean M Subjects t-value M p

Total Recall -2.72 152 .007
Males 13.53 3.00 70
Females 14.77 3.43 151

Recall of Imagery -2.41 157 .017
Males 2.49 2.05 70
Females 3.25 2.43 151

Recall of Material -1.31 138 .194
Males 11.04 2.51 70 '
Females 11.52 2.58 151

Political Inv. 2.99 125 .003
Males 2.95 .75 7O
Females 2.63 . 68 151

Note: T-test results are based on unequal cell sizes. Also, the total recall and recall of
substantive material measures are calculated based on summed scores, whereas, the
political involvement scale is calculated based on averaged scores.

These results indicate that females recall more superficial imagery and total
information (based on superficial imagery) than males, but that males are more politically
involved than females. To firrther examine recall of substantive material, t-tests for the
thought-listing and true/false measures were performed. For the thought-listing measures,
although the females recalled more [M = 9.03, sd = 2.53 (151)] than the males [M = 8.50,
sd = 2.46 (70)], there was not a significant difference [t = -1.49, df = 138, p = .140 (221)].

For the true/false measure, the males actually recalled slightly more [M = 2.54, sd = .23

 

‘+‘

71

(70)] than the females [M = 2.49, sd = .231 (151)], but there was not a significant
difference [t = 1.68, df= 138, p = .096 (221)].

What makes these results interesting is that although males are more politically
involved, females recall more total information, and specifically, more superficial
information, than males. Such findings might be a result of females being more interested
in the characteristics of the candidate compared to males. Thoughts on the differences are

explored further in Chapter 6.

Chapter 6
DISCUSSION

0_v_§r_vie_w

The discussion of the results is composed of several sections. To begin, the
general patterns of findings with political involvement and recall for all advertisements,
soft and hard messages, and television and radio advertisements are discussed. Then
possible explanations for the differences between males and females are explored. This is
followed by implications for the results of this study. Limitations for this study are then
discussed. Finally, directions for firture research are presented.
Pplitical Involvement and Recall with All Advertisements

In general, it was predicted that high involvement individuals, based on systematic
processing, would process more substantive material compared to low involvement
individuals and that low involvement individuals, based on heuristic processing, would
process more superficial imagery compared to high involvement individuals. Generally,
when using trichotomized political involvement, the data support the prediction that high
political involvement individuals process more substantive material compared to low
political involvement individuals. Significant results are produced between these high and
low involvement groups for both the general recall of substantive material and the
thought-listing measures of substantive material. However, there was no support for the
prediction that low political involvement individuals process more superficial imagery

compared to high political involvement individuals.

72

As based on the HSM, the prediction that high involvement individuals should
process more substantive material is expected. However, the results for the prediction
that low involvement individuals should process more superficial imagery than high
involvement individuals were contrary to the theoretical basis of the HSM. The results
were in the opposite direction as predicted, such that high involvement individuals
processed more superficial imagery than low involvement individuals, however, they were
not significant. One explanation for why the results were not in the expected direction
may be due to the internal validity considerations of the study. Although the soft and hard
messages differed in terms of their rationales, the minor changes between these two
message conditions may account for the lack of a significant differences in the expected
direction for low political involvement and recall of superficial imagery. When considering
the t-tests for the key semantic differentials concerning the manipulation check, although
the results indicated that the messages significantly differed from one another, the means
still clustered around the neutral value (“4”) which may additionally indicate that the
messages were not that different from each other. Given additional messages, in which
one message would offer more visuals than the other, a significant correlation between
recall of superficial imagery and low political involvement would probably result.

When considering the applicability of the HSM to political involvement, based on
these results, there is only minimal support. Certainly additional similar examinations must
be conducted in order to determine the appropriateness of applying the HSM to political

involvement.

74

Political Involvement and Recall with Soft and Hard Messagas

In general, a contingent interaction was predicted, such that high political
involvement individuals would be motivated to engage in systematic processing, focusing
primarily on the content cues, and as a result they would process about the same amount
of information in the soft message condition as in hard message condition. Additionally, it
was predicted that low involvement individuals would be motivated to engage in heuristic
processing, focusing primarily on the source factors, and as a result they would recall
more information from the soft message condition than fi'om the hard message condition.

High involvement individuals presented with hard messages did process the same
amount of information as high involvement individuals presented with soft messages.
Given that the message conditions did not vary as to the amount of information presented,
it was expected that high involvement individuals would recall about the same amount of
information fiom both soft and hard messages.

However, low involvement individuals presented with soft messages did not recall
more total information than low involvement individuals presented with hard messages. In
fact, low involvement individuals in the hard message condition actually recalled slightly
more information than low involvement individuals in the soft message condition. The
prediction was based on the theoretical concept that low involvement individuals will
recall more superficial imagery than substantive material, and therefore, they would also
recall more information from the soft message (superficial imagery message) than from the

hard message (substantive material message). However, the opposite result occurred.

75

One possible explanation for this opposite effect may be due to the different
rationales presented in the messages. In the hard message condition the rationales that
were presented (“tough decision-maker”) were probably less traditional and less expected
than the rationales in the soft message condition (“caring” rationales), thus, individuals in
the hard message condition paid attention because the less traditional rationales increased
their attention. As a result of this increased attention for the low involvement individuals,
more total information was recalled. If both sets of rationales had been traditional, the
results for high involvement individuals would probably still be the same as these
individuals, regardless of the message, would be motivated to process information.
However, for the low involvement individuals, results may be different by using more
traditional rationale, such that low involvement individuals would be motivated to process
more information from the soft messages than from the hard messages.

When considering the processing of information fiom the soft and hard messages
as based on general level of political involvement, the applicability of the HSM is
somewhat mixed. High involvement individuals were motivated to process information
regardless of the message condition, however, so too were the low involvement
individuals. Once again, results inconsistent with the HSM for these predictions may be a
result of the rationales used in the messages. Essentially, because of the less traditional
rationales used in the hard message, individuals in the low involvement group were
motivated beyond the prediction of the theory to process the information presented in the

messages. To further understand the applicability of the HSM to predictions about the

76

processing of high and low involvement individuals when presented with hard and soft
messages, additional examinations must be made.
Refill with Television and Radio Advertisements

In general it was predicted that regardless of political involvement, individuals
would process more superficial imagery fi'om the televised advertisements than fi'om the
radio advertisements and that individuals would process more substantive material fiom
the radio advertisements than fiom the television advertisements. Only the prediction for
recall of more superficial imagery for the television condition was confirmed. When
considering the prediction of recall of substantive material, it is important to note that the
results were in the expected direction, such that more substantive material was processed
from radio advertisements than from the television advertisements. One explanation for
the lack of significant difference between the radio and television conditions on recall of
substantive material may be a combination of presenting the messages twice to the
subjects and having the issues be fairly novel. It is possible that with the second
presentation of the advertisement, individuals gave more attention to the issues presented
(and not necessarily the imagery), because of the novelty of the issues.

The prediction derived from the HSM, that more superficial imagery will be
processed from television than radio, was confirmed. However, the prediction concerning
the processing of more substantive material from the radio message than the television
message was not confirmed. Once again, although the HSM applies to the prediction of
recalling more superficial imagery from television than radio, given some of the constraints

of the study, it is unwarranted to assume that the HSM does not apply to the processing of

77

more substantive material fiom the radio messages until further investigations are
conducted.

When considering all the hypotheses, it is important to discuss the potential
concern with the low standardized item alphas for the total recall measure as well as one
of the components of that measure, the true/false items. When considering the true/false
items (Hard Message, or = .53 and Soft Messages, or = . 45), one explanation for the low
alphas may be that individuals may be recalling some of the issues more correctly than
others. Such a possibility would serve to minimize the reliability of that measure as there
would be a lack of consistency between the degree of issues correctly recalled. Further,
the total recall measure also has a low reliability (or = .44). This is a result of the low
reliability of the true/false items as well as the addition of the superficial imagery measure
to the substantive material measures. In order to calculate total recall all substantive
material and superficial imagery items must be combined into one measure, by doing so
the alpha will naturally be low as opposite constructs are summed together. Given the
nature of this study, these measures even with their low alphas had to be used. As a
result, these low alphas may have served to minimize the effects which were predicted.
Candidate Evaluation

On items which would be expected to correspond to soft messages (trustworthy,
honest, sincere, attractive, and fiiendly), individuals in the soft message condition did
evaluate the candidate more positively than individuals in the hard message condition.
Additionally, on items which would be expected to correspond to hard messages (qualify,

experienced, knowledgeable, competent, and intelligent), individuals in the hard message

78

condition did evaluate the candidate more positively than individuals in soft message
condition. Although these results are not significant, in terms of positive evaluations it is
important to note that individuals in the soft message condition will be more likely to
evaluate the candidate more positively on such softer image qualities, whereas, individuals
in the hard message condition will be more likely to evaluate the candidate more positively
on such harder image qualities.

Although the soft and hard message groups did not significantly differ on many of
the evaluation items (as they should not have), the results for the items of “friendly” and
“experienced” are very interesting. Individuals in the soft message condition indicated that
the candidate was more fiiendly than individuals in the hard message condition which was
probably a result of the “caring” rationale. Individuals in the hard message condition
indicated that the candidate was more experienced than individuals in the soft message
condition which was probably a result of the “good policy” rationale. In general, such
findings indicate that in the soft message conditions evaluations will be more likely based
on superficial imagery, whereas, in the hard message conditions evaluations will be more
likely based on substantive material.

Males and Females

Although there were no predictions in terms of political involvement or recall of
information concerning males and females, supplemental analyses on males and females
indicate that there are several differences. First, the findings indicate that there are
significant differences in the level of political involvement between males and females. In -

general, males were more politically involved than females. Males were more likely to

79

have an interest in politics, follow politics and political events, have a good understanding
of politics, as well as try to understand more about politics by listening to talk radio and
watching political TV programs.

Second, the findings indicate that there are significant differences in the amount
and type of information recalled fiom political advertisements. In general, females recalled
more information fiom the political advertisements than males. The results indicated that
females recalled more total information and more superficial imagery from the
advertisements than males. However, when analyzing the data firrther, it is evident that
the greater amount of superficial imagery processed by females compared to males also
accounts for the significant difference in total processing. Therefore, it is more accurate
to reveal that females process more superficial imagery than males. Further, it was also
found that with females, as political involvement increases so does their processing of
substantive material. However, when comparing males and females on recall of
substantive material the difference was not significant. Although the subject population is
composed of two-thirds females and one-third males, the overall study findings are only
effected somewhat as the female-to-male ratio does not necessarily account for a lot of the
variance.

These results are interesting because the HSM would predict that those who are
more politically involved should recall more from the political advertisements. One
possible explanation for these results may be twofold. First, given that politics in general
is a male-dominated arena (that there are more males than females in office), males more

than the females may be more apt to be interested in politics or at a minimum feel socially

8O

pressured to be interested in politics and therefore indicate such on the survey. Second,
because females have a lower level of political involvement, they may be less motivated to
process the substantive material and may be more motivated to process superficially
imagery.
Mtions of the Study

This study makes some useful contributions to the theoretical literature in regards
to achieving a better understanding of the relationship between the cognitive processing of
political advertisements and political involvement, and to applied political campaigns in
regards to the effect of soft and hard messages as well as using television versus radio.

From this study, patterns suggesting that high political involvement leads to more
processing of information are evident. As the HSM was tested with the concept of an
ego-involvement concept (political involvement), such findings offer a start for the
extension of the cognitive processing theories into the political literature by offering
firrther explanation for what type of information and by whom the information is
processed. As predicted by the HSM, the findings indicate that high levels of political
involvement lead to greater cognitive processing of substantive material presented in
political advertisements. However, for low involvement individuals, the data generally fail
to support the prediction. In addition this unsupported prediction being a possible result
due to the minor differences between the soft and hard messages, this finding may be
derived from the tough decision-maker image and “good policy” rationale (in that they are
nontraditional and may serve to stimulate attention and processing) more so, than the lack

of applicability of these cognitive processing theories to the political arena.

81

When differences between the high and low involvement groups on processing
were examined, predictions concerning the high involvement individuals were supported,
however, the same is not true for the low involvement groups. The findings concerning
low involvement were probably a result of some of the constraints imposed by the study.
Therefore, before conclusions can be completely determined about the applicability of the
HSM to political involvement, additional studies should be conducted. Further, when
considering implications for the processing of more superficial imagery from the television
messages than from the radio messages, the HSM’s predictions are confirmed. However,
when considering the processing of more substantive material from the radio messages
than from the television messages, even though the results were not significant, they were
in the predicted direction, thus some reserved support can additionally be given to the
HSM for its applicability. However, additional examinations for these predictions
concerning the HSM should be performed.

Additional implications exist for political consultants and campaign managers.
Television, compared to radio, offers a more superior medium to have more information
conveyed, especially if the desired information to be conveyed is superficial imagery in
nature. Given this, consultants and campaign managers would be wise to have the good-
looking and well-poised candidates present their ideas and image in television
advertisements, and to have their less attractive and less poised candidates do more
“blind” publicity, such as radio advertisements or television advertisements that show
illustrations other than the candidate. However, it is important to mention that individuals

receiving information on political candidates are not necessarily medium specific, that is,

82

individuals will eventually see and hear the candidate in many formats through a variety of
different media. Therefore,.for the candidates who can convey positive images, the
opportunities to showcase their positive image should be maximized, whereas for the
candidates who fail to convey positive images, the opportunity to openly present images
should be minimized.

Implications for soft and hard message presentations are also evident. If the
candidate wants to convey a general positive image, then political advertisements should
be packaged in terms of soft messages, such as specifically presenting positive and general
rationale. However, if the candidate wants to mainly convey that he/she has experience,
then the political advertisements should be packaged in terms of hard messages, such as
specifically presenting a more aggressive and action-oriented rationale. Such strategies
would be very advantageous for the first-time candidate running for a lower level office
position as these candidates often have very little experience, if any. Therefore, to
construct hard messages that would convey experience, even if minimal exists, would help
the candidate gain voters’ attention and even possibly their vote.

Further, consultants and campaign managers may want to target the female
audience with the advertisements that afford audience members the opportunity to process
considerable superficial imagery which would result in greater processing. If the
advertisements were done well and their evaluations were positive, then the result of the
increased processing by the females may very well capture the female vote for that
candidate. To attract the male vote to the candidate, consultants and campaign managers

may want to consider the higher level of political involvement that males possess.

Advertisements could be designed that are straight forward and serve to establish a
camaraderie based on the mutual interest in politics and political events between the
candidate and the male audience members. Advertisements, for example, could have the
candidate advocating an American duty of being politically involved and understanding the
positions of all candidates. Further, the advertisement could compliment those audience
members who already are involved and encourage them to encourage others to become
involved. By having the advertisement establish a camaraderie or liking between male
audience members and the candidate, more information will be recalled from the
advertisements. As with the female audience, if the information that is recalled is positive
information, then the candidate will capture the male vote as well.
Limitations

There are some limitations of this study which must be acknowledged. First,
limitations as a result of the laboratory nature of this study should be recognized. Given
the laboratory setting of this study, subjects were prompted in advance to pay attention to
the advertisement when presented to them. As a result, participants probably gave more
attention to the advertisement in this environment then they may have in a more realistic
environment such as having the advertisement presented to them amongst other
advertisements while watching television at their home or while listening to the radio in
their car. Additionally as the advertisement was presented twice, this may have also
increased recall beyond realistic levels. Although presenting the advertisement a second
time simulated increased exposure (similar to what occurs during the election campaign),

this may actually have aided the less politically inclined subjects to pay more attention as

84

to compensate for the lack of inclination or interest in politics, thus artificially increasing
the recall of information from the advertisements. However, had the advertisements not
been presented a second time, it is very realistic to assume that participants would have
had very little recall of the information presented. Given that during a political campaign
when political advertisements are prevalent, many advertisements are presented and
subsequently repeated, presenting the advertisement twice was a realistic decision for the
design of the study even though it may also serve as a limitation.

A second limitation which should be recognized is that there was only one way for
which to measure the construct of superficial imagery. Given the nature of this construct,
that it should be pure in form and thus its specific recall not prompted by the survey
instrument, the only means for which to measure was to ask a very general question in
terms of the characteristics remembered about the candidate. Although a variety of
semantic differentials were also on the survey that inquired about the candidate’s
“trustworthiness,” “intelligence,” “knowledge,” etc., such items would essentially prompt
subjects to think of the candidate in those terms. Even though the questionnaire instructed
the respondent to leave the item blank if he/she did not think of the candidate in “those
terms,” the semantic differentials were unable to be used as a pure means of measuring
superficial imagery.

A third limitation of the study is that all three of the issues were fairly novel issues
for a candidate to put forth. However, the issues had to be novel so that no prior
impressions of candidates presenting these issues would be with the subjects and also so

that no prior impressions of these issues as political issues would be that evident. As a

85

result of the novelty of the issues, greater recall of information in these advertisements
may be more evident than recall of information fiom other more general advertisements.
Additionally, results may have been different with familiar issues opposed to novel issues
when considering the number of times messages were presented. However, given that
there was variance in the general recall of the substantive material and superficial imagery,
the novelty of the issues is only a minor limitation.

A fourth limitation which should be mentioned is that the soft - hard message
continuum may have varied in additional ways and that perhaps the messages did not
exactly represent the soft - hard ends of the continuum. For example, the hard message
condition, in addition to being more substantive, may also have been more complex than
the soft message condition, and therefore this difference between messages may have
affected some of the findings. Further, as observed in the corresponding semantic
differentials during the manipulation check, the means were clustered around “4” which
indicates that the soft and hard messages, although they were statistically different, may
not be as different fi'om one another as they should be to represent opposing ends of the
soft - hard message continuum. This potential inequivalency between message conditions,
as well as the potential lack of correspondence to soft and hard messages, may account for
some of the findings that were not significant.

Directions for Future Researah

This study offers many additional and interesting ideas for firture research. For all

future studies examining the recall of superficial imagery and substantive material

additional measures of these two constructs must be employed. Given the low reliabilities

86

of some of the substantive material measures and the total recall measure, more exact
items as well as a greater quantity of items should be considered in order to increase the
reliability. For superficial imagery, additional items to measure this tricky construct
should be constructed so that there is more than one item fiom which to interpret findings.
Additionally, more exact hard and soft messages should be constructed so that the
message are equivalent in comparison and that they better correspond to the soft - hard
ends of the continuum.

In general, this research could be extended to include a more in-depth examination
of novel political messages and rationale compared to traditional political messages and
rationale in terms of the content and amount of cognitive processing. The results might
indicate that there is more processing with the conditions of novel rationale and novel
messages than with the traditional rationale and traditional message conditions.

A second study that would further examine the impact of television on the recall of
information from political advertisements would be beneficial in extending this research.
To investigate differences between a variety of messages and rationales presented over the
television medium would be helpfirl in determining when to use and not use television
when it comes to recalling information. Additionally, such a study would also advance
practical ideas (do’s and don’ts) for general marketing and campaign strategies.

A third study that would more specifically investigate the differences between
males and females in terms of their political involvement and cognitive processing of
political advertisements would not only be very interesting, but would also advance the

science of marketing political candidates to gain the male or female vote.

87

Finally, a fourth study that would extend the processing of image and issue
processing to the vote outcome would be very beneficial. To investigate the influence of
such processing with the election outcome would offer additional insight into the
persuasion and political literature as well as serve as general guidelines for political
consultants and campaign managers.

This study, with its useful and interesting findings, contributes to both the
communication and political literature. In general, the results of this study provide the
start to an extension for the HSM into the political communication arena by examining
political involvement (essentially ego-involvement). As a result, readers gain a better
understanding of the relationship between cognitive processing and political involvement.
Additional understanding is also provided for the relationships between cognitive
processing and mediums through which to advertise. This study through its findings also
encourages firture research to examine differences between males and females as well as
the differences between noveland traditional messages. Although firrther studies
examining the HSM, and other cognitive processing theories in general, with political

involvement should be conducted, this study offers a promising start to the extension.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TEXT FOR ADVERTISEMENTS
Soft Message (Superficial Imagegy)
Hi, I’m Mark Stevens. I’m running for State Representative because I care about you and
the communities in which we all live. I’m in favor of reforming divorce laws in order to
keep more families together because I understand the value of strong families. I also favor
providing health benefits for domestic partners because I care about the happiness and
well-being of all citizens. And, because I have compassion for those who are terminally ill,
1 support the practice of physician-assisted suicide. I’m the candidate who cares about
you and your community. Vote for me, Mark Stevens, the candidate who cares.

(102 words)

H_ard MessagafSubstantive an

Hi, I’m Mark Stevens. I’m running for State Representative because I’m the candidate
who can make tough decisions and solve tough problems. I’m in favor of instituting
stricter divorce laws because it’s a practical means of maintaining the family unit. Also, I
want to enact legislation of health benefits for domestic partners because married couples
receive these same benefits. And, because I believe in the constitutional right of personal
choice, I advocate the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. I’m the candidate who
can make tough decisions and solve tough problems. Vote for me, Mark Stevens, the
candidate who can handle the tough issues.

(103 words)

88

APPENDIX B

ROUND 1 - PRETEST OF STMULUS MATERIALS

The State House Rqaresartative (MSU jurisdiction) is tryingto assess whidr issues are mos irrportantto MSU studarts. For eadr ofthe
following issues. please circle the response which best indicates how irrportant that issue is to you. Please use the following scale:

Very ImpomWIya I. Ilnpomnt(l)= 2. Somewhatlmportant(SI)- 3, Neutral (N)- 4. Samar“ Unhnportant(SU)- 5.
(U) Unhapomnt - 6. and Very Unhnportant (VU) -7.

Very Very
Important Uhporut
How Important Is the Issue of to you? VI I SI N 811 U VII
1. abortion rigrts proteaion l 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. dismmtling affirmative action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. redudngtu'niar rats 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. strictu- college admission standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. irraeasing errploymart opportun'nies for college 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
grads
6. establishing more rights for dorrrestic partners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. balancingthe State's budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. crrtt'mg m and local taxes I 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. reducing classroom size at MSU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. mimal rigrts proteaion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ll. cartrolling the State's deficit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l2. legalia'ng physician-assisted suicide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l3. easier accesstostudartfinancial aid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. students’ freedom to have kegger parties I 2 3 4 5 6 7
l5. gestasudenthealthcarecovcrage l 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. autornm'c mien of driver’s lioarse for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
lira-time driving inpaired conviction
17. wider date rape sanmeing l 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. pamitt'mg more nudart cars on earrpus l 2 3 4 5 6 7
l9. increasing low-cod haldl care for AIDS patients 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. reducing the drinking age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. wider divorce laws 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. softening panties for drug possession l 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. prohibiting srnok'mg on animus l 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. tougrcr polieia for fake ID possasion I 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. construa'mg more sate prisms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

89

APPENDIX C

ROUND 2 - SOFT AND HARD MESSAGES
Soft Message and Softer Verbs

A local politician is intersted in your reunion to the following political messages. After each. there are some questions corrcerningthat
message Please answer cad) of the questions concerning eadr message. There aretwo messages on the front and three on the badt.

Becauselcareahouttheresldentsofthe Lanahrgamlwantmseeamoncomprehendveheahhearecovcngeforevcrym

This manage Is: (For cadr. place a chedtrnark that best refleas how you feel about the message)

msmcere ‘_ a” M __ __ _ __ sincere
hard __ __ _ __ _ _ __ soft
warndrearted __ ‘_ _ __ _ _ _ cold-hearted
loud _ __ __ _ __ _ __ quia
emotional _ _ _ _ __ _ __ rational
Hoar hnportant Is this Very Very
Issue to you? (circle one) Inportant Inportant Neutral Uninportant Uninportant
flow favorable are you Very Very
toward this issue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neutral Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

I‘mlnfavoroflooldngatstrlcterdlvorcelawalnordertolreeprnorefandlleatogether-mInderstanddrevalaeofstroag
fuflllea.

This nteaaage is: (For each. place a dreckrnark that heat refleds how you feel about the message)

manicure ,_ _ __ __ __ __ _ sincae
hard __ __ __ _ __ __ _ soft
warrrdrearted _ -_ g_ __ _ __ __ cold-hearted
loud __ ____ __ _ __ __ _ quid.
emotional __ _.. __ _ _ _ __ rational
Haw Import”! II this Very Vay
bone to you? (circle one) Inportant Inportant Neutral Unirrportarrt Ilninportant
flow favorable are you Very Very
toward this hone? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neural Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

lmttosectheconstructlonofmorestateprbonssowehavefewercrflalsonthesmcohecaueIa-coaeernedahodthe
aafetyofourcomdflea.

This message ls: (Foreadelacea dredtmark thatbest reflects how you feel abouttherncaaage)

msincae _ __ __ _ _ _ _ sincere
hard __ _ ,_ _ _ __ ___ _ soft
warnircarted __ __ __ __ _ -_ _ cold-hearted
loud __ __ _ _ _ _ __ quid
emotional __ _ _ __ __ _ __ ratrar' al
How Important ls thh Very Very
bane to you? (circle one) Inportant Inportant Neutral Unirrportant Uninportant
How favorable am you Very Very
toward Ms lane? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neutral Unfavorable Unfavorable

9O

91

BecameIcareahonttheneedsofthoaewhoaretemrhuliyill.Isnpportthelegaflaadonoi’phyaiclan—asslstedauiclde.

Tide message Is: (For eadr. place a dreckmark that ha reflects how you feel about the message)

msarcere
hard

warndrearted

loud

emotional

Howilnportantiathb
issuetoyou?(circieone)

How favorahle are you
toward this lane? (circle one)

Very
Inponant

Very
Favorable

lrrportarrt

Favorable

._..__.._.

Nartral

Neutral

Uninportant

Unfavorable

sincere

soil
mid-halted
quid
rational

Unfavorable

 

IwanttoloolrhrtoleglshdonofhealthandtaxheneflufordomeadcpartnenhecanaelcanahoutthehppheaandweI-hehg

ofallcldaena.

This message is: (For eadr. place a dreckmark that be: refleds how you feel about the message)

msincere

hard

warnirearted

loud
emaional

Howlrnportaatlalhb
lasaetoyoa? (drcleone)

How favorable are you
toward tide lune? (circle one)

7*—

Favorable

._..._.

Irmortant

Favorable

..—
.—
_.__.

...—

Neutral

Neutral

“-

_—

Unirwonant

Unfavorable

sincae

Unfavorable

Hard Message and Harmer Verbs

A local politician is otter-crud in your reaction to the following political messages. After each. there are some questions concerning that
mange Please mswer each of the questions ccnceming eadr message There are two messages on the fruit and three on the bade.
Thmk You!!!

Because preventative health care saves taxpayers money, I want to start a more compreberulve health care coverage for
everyone.

This message ls: (For eadL place a dreckmark that best reflects how you feel about the message)

msincere __ __ __ __ _ __ __ sincere
hard __ _ _ _ __ _ _ soft
wamiiearted __ _ _ __ _ __ _ cold-hearted
loud H __ a.” __ M. M _ .._. quid
emotional __ ._ _ __ _ _ __ ratrona' I
How lmportult ls this Very Va-y
Issue to you? (circle one) lnportant Important Nam! Uninportant Uninportant
How favorable are you Very . Very
toward this lssae? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Nana] Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

I’mlnfavoroflnstltntlngstflcterdlvorcehwshrordertokeepmorefanflestogetherbecausesuchlawsareapracflcdme-s
ofmdntaflngfanllynnlts.

This Ilse-sage Is: ( For eadl. place a diedunark that beat refleaa how you feel about the message)

moan _ __ __ _ __ _ _ sinca'e
hard _ _ _ __ _ _ _ soft
wamhearted _ __ fl__ __ _ __ __ cold-hearted
loud ___ __, __ __ __ __ __ quiet
emotional __ _ p__ __ __ _ _ mma' I
How Important ls tlds Very Va'y
Issue to you? (circle one) lnportant lnportant Neutral Uninportant Unirrportant
How favorable are you Very Very
toward this lssae? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neural Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

lwanttolnplesnenttheconstmctlonofmoreatateprisonssowehavefewercrlmlnalsonthestreetabecauselwanttosave
Mnmdollars.

This message Is: (For eadt. place a diedcmark that has reflects how you feel about the message)

msincu'e __ __ ’_ _ __ _ _ sincere
hard ” __ _ __ __ _ __ sell
warniiearted _ __ _ _ _ _ _ cold-hearted
loud M W. ___ ____ ____ ___ M quid
emotional __ _ _ __ __ __ __ ratat' al
How Important Is this Very Very
lssae to you? (circle one) lnportant lnportant Neutral Uninportant Uninportmt
How favorable are you Verv Very

towaul an. Issue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neutral Unfavorable Unfavorable

93

MiWehMWflghtofwrmdMIdvmmkpm-MWMe

This message is: (For adt. place a dieckmark that beg refleas how you feel about the message)

rnaatcene
hard
warnilarted
loud
emotional

__.

iiowhport-tisdlis Very
issnetoyoa? (circle one) lnportmt

How favorable are you Very
toward tHs hsne? (circle orse) Favorable

lnportant

Favorable

Neural

Neutral

Unirrportant

Unfavorable

sincere

sofl
cold-hearted
quid
rational

 

iwaattoenaetlegisiatloaofheall-adtaabenefitfordomesdepartnenbeeaase-anledcoaplesrecdvedsesesmebeaefls.

ThismessageisuForeadelaceadiedrmarkthatbestrdleashmyou feelaboutthernasage)

marncere
hard
warniiearted
loud
emaicnal

_

How hWhthb Very
lssaetoyon? (circleone) invert“

How favorable are you Very
toward tfls issue? (circle one) Favorable

.—
____..

lnportsnt

Favorable

Neural

Neutral

Uninportant

Unfavorable

sincere
soil
cold-batted

ratrm' al

Verv

Unfavorable

94

Soft Message and Traditional Verbs

A local politician is interested in your reaction to the following political messages. After eadt. there are some qualms calcern'slg that
message Please answer each of the questions concerning each message There are two messages on the front and three on the back.
Thank You!!!

Becauseicarcabodtberesidentaofthe[Mamisupponamoncomprebensivebeahbcarccovengeforeveryone

Tids message is: (For eadl. place a checkmarkthat best reflects how you feel aboutthe message)

msrncere _ __ _ __ __ _ __ sincere
hard __ m ___ _ _ _ __ __ soil
warnilesrted __ _ _ __ _ _ __ cold-hearted
loud ,_ 7__ __ __ _ __ _ quiet
emotional _ __ _ __ __ _ _ ratimal
How important is this Very Very
issue to you? (circle one) lnportant lnponant Neutral Uninportant Uninportant
How favorable are you Very Very
toward this issue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neutral Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

ifavorstricterdivorceiawainordertokeepmorefandflestogetberbeeauseindenbdtbevdneofstrongfaralles.

Tlls message is: (For each. places chedunarlrthatbed reflects how you feel abouthernaasge)

lnarncerc __ ____ * _ __ __ _ sincere
hard __ __ _ _ _ _ _ soil
warnilarted __ __ _ _ _ _ _ cold-hearted
loud _ _ __ _ _ _ _ quid
emotional _ ___ ,_ __ ___ _ _ rational
How W is this Very Very
issue to you? (circle one) inportant lnportant Nannl Uninportant Unirrpcrtant
ilow favorable are you Very Verv

toward all. issue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Naltral Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

immfltbecomtrnedoaofmondateprhoassowebavefewercrhinflsontbesuceubecausel-concernedabodtbe
safetyofoarcoa-a-rltles.

Tbimessage is: (For eadl. place a dredcmarkthat best refleds how you feel aboutthe message)

lnsincere __ __ __ __ __ _ __ sincere
hard _ 7__ __ __ _ _ _ sofl.
warndlesrted _ __ _ __ __ __ _ cold-halted
loud +_ ,_ __ _ __ _ _ quid
mm al _ _ _ __ __ __ __ mm' al
How W is tfls Very Very
issue to you? (circle one) lrrportant lrrponant Neutral Uninportant Unirrport-lt
How favorable are you Vav Very

toward t” issue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neutral Unfavorable Unfavorable

95

Becamelcarcabontdleneedsofdlosewhoarcterndnaiiyflliendonekgaflzingphysician-assistedsrricide.

This message is: (For each. place a checkmarit that best reflects how you feel about the message)

insincere
hard
warrrd'lesrted
loud

ernoticnal

liowilaportaatistllis
issnetoyon? (circleone)

How favorableareyorl
toward this lune? (circle one)

Vay
Inportmt

Va?
Favorable

lnportant

Favorable

Neutral

Neutral

Uninportant

Unfavorable

sinca'e

soil.
cold-hearted
quid
rational

Very
Uninportant

V63!
Unfavorable

 

marncere
hard
warnilearted
loud
emotional

Howisnportantisthis
issnetoyou?(circieone)

Howfavorableareyou
towardtlrlsissaeNcir-cleone)

—_

_

Var
important

Va?
Favorable

Inportant

Favorable

.__

Neutral

Neutral

This message is: (For each. place a dleckmarlt that best refleds how you feel about the message)

Uninportant

Unfavorable

ladvoeatelegisiatlonofheslthandtasburefitsfordomesdcpartnenbeanseicanaboutbebapphasandwefl-behgofafl

sincere

soil.
cold-hearted
quid
rational
Va?
Uninportsnt

Va?
Unfavorable

96

Hard Message and TraditionaLVerbs

A loal politician is irlterdned in your readion to the following political messages. After eadr. there are some questions concaning that
message Please answer each of the questions conceming esdl message. There are two masages on the front and three on the back.
Thank You!!!

Because preventadve health care saves taxpayers money. i support a more comprehensive health care coverage for everyone.

This message is: (For eadt. places dleckmarit that bed reflects how you feel aboutthe message)

lnsalcere _ __ __ _ _ __ _ sincere
hard _ V_ __ __ __ _ __ soil
warnilesrted __ _ _ _ _ __ _ cold-hearted
loud . _ ___ 7 _ g _ _ _ _ _ quid
emotional __ _ _ _ _ _ __ ratialal
liow hiportsnt is this Very Very
issue to you? (circle one) Inportant inportant Neutral Uninportant Uninportant
How favorable are you Very Very
toward this issue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neutral Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

Ifavoratricterdivorcehwsinordertokeepmonfanrfluwgetberbecaueucbhwsmapncfledmeauofm
fanilyunlts.

This message is: (For each. places d'leckmark that bed reflects how you feel abouthe message)

rns'swae _ _ __ _ __ _ __ sincd'e
hard __ __ _ _ _ _ __ soil.
warni'lesrted _ __ g“ __ _ __ _ cold-hearted
loud _ __ __ _ _ _ _ quid
anotiml _ __ p_ _ __ __ _ ratialal
How important is this Va'y Very
Issue to your? (circle one) lnportant lnponant Neutral Uninportmt llnirlportant
How favorable are you Very Very
toward this hue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Ndltral Unfavorable Unfavorable

 

inppontbemndrnedonof-onsateprboumwehvekwercrhhsbontbembeeaueiw‘tosaveibtnretas
dohrs.

This message is: (For eadt. place a dredtmark that best reflects how you feel abomthemdsage)

msrncerc _ _ __ _ _ __ _ sincrse
hard __ w _ _ __ __ __ soil
warnilesrted _ __ _ _ _ _ __ cold-hearted
loud _ __ __ __ 7_ _ _ quid
emotional __ __ __ _ _ _ _ ratialal
How important is this Very Very
issue to you? (circle one) lnportant important Neural Unirrportsnt Uninportna
How favorable are you Very Very

toward thb issue? (circle one) Favorable Favorable Neural Unfavorable Unfavorable

97

BeamihflevehmechomifigmofpmmchdceieMomkgafldnngkfle

This message is: (For each. place a dleckmark that bed reileds how you feel about the message)

insincere
hard
warndlearted
loud
emotional

iiowisnportsntisthis
issnetoyou?(circleone)

iiow favorable are you
toward this issue? (circle one)

Very

inportmt

Very
Favorable

lrrportsnt

Favorable

Neutral

Ndnral

Uninportant

Unfavorable

sincere

soil
cold-hearted
quid
rational
Very
Unummn'

Va?
Unfavorable

 

insincere
hard
warnilearted
loud
andional

Howhrportntlsthis
issnetoyonNcircleone)

Howfavorableareyon
towardthisisane?(circleone)

._—

Very

Important

Vdv

v

Favorable

lnportant

Favorable

Neutral

Neutral

'l'bisrnessageis: (Foredeplacea diedtmarkthatbedrefleds how you feel aboutthemesssge)

Uninportarlt

Unfavorable

ladvoeatelegisiationofhealtbandtasbuteflhfordomesdcpartnenbecauemanledconplurcedvedlesesarnebenems.

Van!

Uninportmt

Va?
Unfavorable

APPENDIX D

MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT

For each of the following questions. circle your response based on the options indicated below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
1. l have a lot of interest in politics. I 2 3 4 5
2. I @ about how the outcome of an election affects me. 1 2 3 4 5
3. l have a strong interest in following political mmflgls. l 2 3 4 5
4. I have a good understanding of politics. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Even during nonelection years I follow poli_tical eveng. l 2 3 4 5
6. I’m interested in following the political campaigns of l 2 3 4 5
presidential candidates.
7. l‘m interested in following the political campaigns of l 2 3 4 5
candidates for governor and sena_tor.
8. I’m interested in following the political campaigns of l 2 3 4 5
candidates for state legislature.
9. I believe that understanding mm issues is worthwhile. l 2 3 4 5
10. It’s important to me to know candidatcs’ msitions of l 2 3 4 5
issues.
Very Fairly
Often Often Sometimes Seldom Never
l I. i read newsmpgr stories about campaigns or candidates. 1 2 3 4 5
12. i listen intently to political advertiscmtllts on television. I 2 3 4 5
13. I’ve donated money to a candidate or a campaign. I 2 3 4 5
l4. I've distributed campaign materials for a candidate. I 2 3 4 5
IS. l‘ve volunteered my time for a candidate to work on a l 2 3 4 5
campaign.
l6. I’ve tried to oersugde others to vote for one candidate 1 2 3 4 5
over another candidate.
1?. I listen to talk radio to understand more about politics. I 2 3 4 5
18. I watch mlitical TV promms to understand more about 1 2 3 4 5
politics.

STOP! WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.

98

99

19. Please describe what you consider the memorable aspects of the advertisement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. Please list all the ideas/issues the candidate mentioned that you can remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Please list all the characteristics of the candidate that you can remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you were viewing or listening to the message, to what degree did you think about the
candidate in the following terms? Think of how strongly you felt about the candidate regarding the
continuum of each item. Place a check mark on the line that best reflects how you feel. (If you did
not think of the candidate in a specific term. then leave that item blank.)

22. Trustworthy Untrustworthy

23. Qualified Unqualified

24. Emotional Rational

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

41.

42.

100

Dishonest
Sympathetic
Sincere

Close

Casual
Unattraetive
Unfriendly
Conservative
Excitable
Experienwd
Knowledgeable
Competent __
Strong
Warm-Hcarted
Intelligent
Caring
Compassionate

Hard

Honest
Unsympathetic
Insincere

Distant

Formal
Attractive
Friendly

Liberal

Calm
lnexperienced
Unknowledgcable
Incompetent
Weak
Cold-Hcarted
Unintelligent
Uncaring
Uncompassionate

803

Based on what the candidate actually said in the advertisement. please answer the following
statements. Circle your response.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

 

The candidate favors divorce laws.

The candidate believes that individuals have the constitutional right to
personal choice.

The candidate understands the value of strong families.

The candidate wants to construct more state prisons to put criminals
behind bars.

The candidate favors legislation of health benefits for domestic partners.

The candidate endorses physician-assisted suicide.

True

True

True

True

True

True

False Unsure

False Unaue

False Unsure

False Unsure

False Unsure

False Unsure

101

49. The reason the candidate supports domestic partner health benefits is

50. The candidate expressed his compassion for those who are terminally ill.

because married couples receive these same benefits.

51. The candidate favors a tax cut for everyone.

 

True False
True False
True False

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

The following questions, please circle your response. Please circle only gm response for each
question.

52.

53.

54.

56.

57.

58.

59.

61.

62.

63.

Prior to viewing this message. did you know who the candidate was?

YES NO NOT SURE

This candidate was running for:

US. CONGRESS US SENATE PRESIDENT STATE REPRESENTATIVE

Would you vote for this candidate?

YES NO NOT SURE

55. If YES. why?

 

Did you vote in the last Presidential election?
YES NO
Are you registered to vote?
YES NO
What is your party affiliation?
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT REFORM
What party affiliation did you grow up with?

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT REFORM

. Politically spcaking. how do you consider yourself?

LIBERAL MODERATE CONSERVATIVE

How old were you on your last birthday?

DON’T KNOW
LIBERTARI AN OTHER
LIBERTARIAN OTHER

 

What is your ethnicity?
AFRICAN AMERICAN ASIAN HISPANIC NATIVE AMERICAN
WHIrE/CAUCASIAN OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

Are you a US. citizen?

YES NO

102

64. What ycar in school are you?

FRESHMAN SOPHOMORE JUNIOR SENIOR
65. What is your sex?

MALE FEMALE
66. In which class are you receiving extra-credit for your participation?

TC 275 COM 391 COM 340 OTHER

Thank you for your participation!

APPENDIX E
CODING CATEGORIES FOR THOUGHT-LISTING ITEMS
Manipulation Check
The purpose of this category is to detennine if there were differing perceptions of

the overall tone of the message, such that those respondents exposed to soft messages
would perceive the candidate tO be caring in nature, and that those respondents exposed to
hard messages would perceive the candidate to be a tough decision-maker. Based on the
degree to which “caring” or “tough” were mentioned, phrased were coded as such:

I = Tough was mentioned

2 = Inference of tough was mentioned

3 = Mention of neither caring or tough

4 = Inference of caring was mentioned
5 = Caring was mentioned

Divorce

The purpose of this category is to determine to what degree respondents recalled
the details of the stricter divorce laws issue that was presented. The coding category is as

follows:

0 = NO mention of the divorce issue

1 = Mention of the divorce issue, but in the wrong direction (such as “not
favoring divorce laws”)

2 = Partial mention of divorce issue by use of words or fragments, may also
use adjectives, but would not use verbs (such as “divorce” or
“stricter divorce laws”)

3 = Complete mention of the divorce issue by use of verbs and/or rationale
(such as “supports stricter divorce laws” or “stricter divorce laws
because he believes in keeping families together”)

103

104

Partner

The purpose of this category is to determine to what degree respondents recalled
the details of the benefits for domestic partners issue that was presented. The coding

category is as follows:

0 = NO mention of the benefits for domestic partners issue

I = Mention of the benefits for domestic partners issue, but in the wrong
direction (such as “not favoring partner benefits”)

2 = Partial mention of the benefits for domestic partners issue by use of
words orfragments, may also use adjectives, but would not use
verbs (such as “domestic partners” or “partner benefits”)

3 = Complete mention of the benefits for domestic partners issue by use of
verbs and/or rationale (such as “supports benefits for domestic
partners” or “benefits for domestic partners because he believes

these couples should get the same benefits that married couples
do”)

Suicide
The purpose of this category is to determine to what degree respondents recalled

the details of the physician-assisted suicide issue that was presented. The coding category

is as follows:

0 = NO mention of the physician-assisted suicide issue

1 = Mention of the physician-assisted suicide issue, but in the wrong
direction (such as “not favoring physician-assisted suicide”)

2 = Partial mention of the physician-assisted suicide issue by use Of
words or fragments, may also use adjectives, but would not use
verbs (such as “physician suicide” or “suicide”)

3 = Complete mention of the physician-assisted suicide issue by use of
verbs and/or rationale (such as “supports physician-assisted suicide”
or “physician-assisted suicide because he has compassion for those
who are terminally ill”)

105

Additional Issues

The purpose of this category was to determine if there were issues that were
recalled in addition to the three main issues presented in the advertisement. Additional
issues could have been recalled fi'om the rationale presented in the advertisement, such as
“family-oriented,” or “believes in rights.” These issues were not coded, there actual

number mentioned by the respondent was tabulated.

Superficial lmageg

The purpose of this category was to determine the number of characteristics of the
candidate that the respondent listed. These issues were not coded, there actual number

mentioned by the respondent was tabulated.

APPENDIX F

FACTOR LOADINGS FOR POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT

 

Item fictor l
*Polinvl .85
*Polinv2 .58
*Polinv3 .84
*Polinv4 .71
*PolinvS .82
Polinv6
*Polinv7 .78
*Polinv8 .75
* Polinv9 . 5 5
Polinv l O

*Pohnvll .74
*Pohnvlz .59
Pohnvl3

Pohnv14

*PothIS .46
*Pohnv16 .66
*Poflnv17 .57
*Pofinv18 .70

* Indicates that the item was used in the political involvement scale.

106

APPENDIX G

FACTOR LOADINGS FOR SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL

 

Item Factor 1 Lactor 2
Divorce .74 .13
Partner .62 -.27
Suicide .77 .07
True/False .52 -.34
Additional Issues .21 .90

107

APPENDIX H

FACTOR LOADINGS FOR TOTAL RECALL

 

Item [actor I fictor 2
Divorce .74 -.07
Partner .63 . 10
Suicide .77 -.O8
True/False .52 .08
Additional Issues . I4 -.84
Superficial Imagery . 15 .82

Note: Additional Issues probably loads low onto this factor because few subjects
mentioned additional issues. Superficial Imagery probably loads low on this factor as it is
the only item measuring characteristics of the candidate. However, the low loadings of
these two items do not pose a concern because the purpose of this scale is to measure
total recall of information presented in the advertisement and therefore must consider all
measures of recall.

108

LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Atkin, C. K., Bowen, L., Nayman, O. B., & Sheinkopf, K. G. (1973). Quality
versus quantity in televised political ads. Public Opin_ion Quarterly, 37, 209-224.

 

Basil, M., Schooler, C., & Reeves, B. (1991). Positive and negative political
advertising: Effectiveness of ads and perceptions Of candidates. In F. Biocca (ed)
Television and Political Advertisi_ng, Volume I, (pp. 245-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Biocca, F. (1991). Viewers’ mental models of political messages: Toward a theory
of semantic processing of television. In F. Biocca (ed.) Television and Political
Advertising, Volume 1, (pp. 27-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use
of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personalig and Social
Psychology, 32, 752-766.

Conover, P. J. (1981). Political cues and the perception of candidates. American
Politics (hLarterly. 2, 427-448.

Diamond, E. & Bates, S. (1992). The spot: The rise of political advertising on
television (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: I-IBJ.

F ishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1981). Attitudes and voting behavior: An application Of
the theory of reasoned action. In G. M. Stephenson & J. M. Davis (Eds), Proggess in
applied social pgchology (pp. 253-313). New York: John Wiley.

Garramone, G. M. (1983). Issue versus image orientation and effects of political
advertising. Corruppnication Research, _1_0, 59 - 76.

Garramone, G. M. (1985). Motivation and political information processing:
Extending the gratifications approach. In S. Kraus and R. M. Perloff (Eds), Mass media

and political thought: An information-processing approach (pp. 201-219). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Garramone, G. M., Steele, M. E., & Pinkleton, B. (1991). The role of cognitive

schemata in determining candidate characteristic effects. In F. Biocca (Ed.) Television and
political advertising (Vol. I, pp. 311-328). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

109

 

110

Geiger, S. F ., & Reeves, B. (1991). The effects of visual structure and content
emphasis on the evaluation and memory for political candidates. In F. Biocca (Ed)
Television and politieaflidvertisarg (Vol. 1, pp. 125-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Gibbs, N., & Duffy, M. (1996, November). Two men, two visions. Time, pp. 30 -
36.

Glass, D. P. (1985). Evaluating presidential candidates: Who focuses on their
personal attributes? Public Opinion Quarterly 49 517-534.

’_9

Graber, D. A. (1987). Television news without pictures? Critical Studies in Mags
Communfirtion. 5, 74-78.

Hovland, C. 1., Harvey, O. J., & Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast
effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, _5_§, 244-252.

Jamieson, K. H. & Birdsell, D. S. ( 1988). Presidential debates: The challenga pf
creating an informed e1eetoga_t§. New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, B. T. & Eagly, A. H. ( 1989). Efi‘ects of involvement on persuasion: A
meta-analysis. Paychological Bulletin. 106. 290-314.

Kahneman, D. ( 1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kahneman, D., Peavler, W. S., & Onuska, L. (1968). Effects of verbalization and

incentive on the pupil response to mental activity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22,
186-196.

 

Kaid, L. L., & Sanders, K. R. (1978). Political television commercials: An
experimental study Of type and length. Commanieation Research, 5, 57-70.

Kassarjiart, H. H. (1980). Low involvement: A second look, Proceedings of the
Association for Consumer Research, 8, 31-34.

Lanzetta, .l. T., Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D. McHugo, G. J. (1985). Emotional
and cognitive responses to televised images Of political leaders. In S. Kraus and R. M.

Perloff (Eds), Mass media and political thought: An informationaprocessing approach (pp.
85-116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mayar. M. (1958). Madison avenue U. S. A. New York: Harper & Brothers.

 

Mazo, E. (1962). The Great Debates. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for Study of
Democratic Institutions.

111

Nimmo, D., & Savage, R. L. ( I976). Qindidates a_r_rd their images. Pacific
Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

Pedersen, J. T. (1978). Political involvement and partisan change in presidential
elections, Americaaloumal of Political Science. 22,, 18-30.

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease
persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. J cum] of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981a). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contempom approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981b). Issue involvement as a moderator of the
effects of attitude on advertising content and context. In K. B. Monroe (Ed), Advances in
consumer resaaaph (Vol. 8, pp. 20-24). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central
and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a

determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
4_1, 847-855.

Rosenburg, S. W., & McCafferty, P. (1987). The image and the vote:
Manipulating voters’ preferences. Public Opinion marterly, fl, 31-47.

Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspectives on Involvement in Consumer and
Communication Research. In B. Dervin and M. Voigt (eds) Progress in Communication
Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 243-269. Norwood, N .J .: Ablex Publishing Company.

 

Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The pgchology of ego-involvements. New York:
John “Wiley and Sons.

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: AssimilatioL and contrast
effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitude as the individual’s own categories:
The social judgment-involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W.

Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds), Attitude.ago-involvement, and change (pp. 105-139). New
York: “Wiley.

Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change:
The socig judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders

112

Shyles, L. (1984). Defining “images” of presidential candidates from televised
political spot advertisements. PolitichBelavior. _6_,171-181

Shyles, L. (1986). The televised political spot: Its Structure, content, and role in
the political system. In L. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, & K. Sanders (Eds), New perspectives on
political advertising (pp. 107 - I38). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Stiff, J. B. (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-

analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Comraumgtion
Monogzaphs, 5;, 75-89.

Stiff, J. B. (1994). Persuaaive communication. New York: The Guilford Press.

Tan, A. S. (1980). Mass media use, issue knowledge, and political involvement,
Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 241-248.

Thorson, E., Christ, W. G., & Caywood, C. ( I991). Selling candidates like tubes
Of toothpaste: Is the comparison apt? In F. Biocca (Ed) Television and political
advertising, (Vol. I, pp. 145-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wykoff, G. (1968). Image Candidates. New York: The Macmillan Company.

      

I‘IICHI

hurrah

\