Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

For more information, click here

Become a Reviewer!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Political Research Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sanders, D.
Right arrow Articles by Norris, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Impact of Political Advertising in the 2001 U.K. General Election

David Sanders

University of Essex

Pippa Norris

Harvard University

This article explores the extent to which advocacy and attack Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) affected voters’ party preferences during the British general election campaign of 2001. The analysis uses an experimental design that involved conducting "media exposure" tests on a representative sample of Greater London voters (N = 919) during the final weeks of the June 2001 election campaign. Respondents completed a pre-test questionnaire before being exposed to a variety of different media stimuli. Their political attitudes were then measured again in a post-test questionnaire. The empirical findings suggest that, in general, PEBs exerted little direct effect on voters’ images of the main political parties in 2001. However, there were a series of "partial" exposure effects confined to particular sub-groups of voters. For example, for non-partisan voters, "attack" advertising appears to have been less effective than "advocacy" advertising. Indeed, in the U.K. in 2001 there were contexts in which negative campaigning was explicitly counter-productive in the sense that it appears to have actively stimulated sympathy for the target of the attack rather than strengthened the relative position of the sponsor.

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 4, 525-536 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/106591290505800401


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Comparative Political StudiesHome page
M. Bruter
Time Bomb?: The Dynamic Effect of News and Symbols on the Political Identity of European Citizens
Comparative Political Studies, December 1, 2009; 42(12): 1498 - 1536.
[Abstract] [PDF]