American Association for Public Opinion Research

Campaign Advertisements Versus Television News as Sources of Political Issue Information Author(s): Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee Source: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 41-65 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749649 Accessed: 22/01/2010 06:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for Public Opinion Research and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISEMENTS VERSUS TELEVISION NEWS AS SOURCES OF POLITICAL ISSUE INFORMATION XINSHUZHAO H. CHAFFEE STEVEN

Abstract Relative contributions of television news and campaign advertisingto U.S. voters' knowledge about candidateissue differences are compared. Empiricalcomparisonsare based on interviewdatafrom six campaignsurveys of voters, in various election settings from 1984 to 1992. In hierarchicalregression analyses, after controls for demographicand political interest variables, measures of attention to television news consistently accountfor a significantincrementof slightlymore than 2 percent of variance in issue knowledge. Parallel measures representing attentionto candidates'televised advertisementsproducea much more variable pattern in terms of variance explained in knowledge. Usually the effects of advertisementsare less than those of news, and sometimes they are nonsignificant; but in one hotly contested ideological race the informativeeffect attributableto advertisementsexceeds that of TV news. These patternshold up after further controls for other media use variables, including newspaperreading. A commonly repeated generalizationin the political communication literature is Patterson and McClure's (1976) conclusion that voters learn issue informationfrom television advertisementsbut not from television news. The two assertions are often paired in syntheses of the literature(e.g., Diamond 1978; Diamond and Bates 1984; Graber 1989;Jamieson 1993;Kaid 1981;Kraus and Davis 1981;Nimmo 1978; O'Keefe and Atwood 1981). The study has been cited at least 150 times in academicjournals (Social Sciences CitationIndex 1976-93), includingrecent publicationsby political scientists (Bartels 1993;FinXINSHU ZHAO is

assistantprofessorof journalismand mass communication at the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill, and STEVENH. CHAFFEEiS Janet M. Peck Professorof international at StanfordUniversity. communication
PublicOpinionQuarterly Volume59:41-65 ? 1995by the American Associationfor PublicOpinionResearch All rightsreserved.0033-362X/95/5901-0006$02.50

42

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

kel 1993);some mass communicationresearchersconsider it a "classic" of the political campaignliterature(Weaverand Drew 1993). Often overlooked when citing Pattersonand McClure'sconclusions is the limited scope of their study, conductedduringa single campaign (Nixon-McGovern, 1972 election) in a single county (Onondaga County, New York). Subsequentvoter surveys have sometimesfound little correlationbetween knowledgeand attentionto politicalcommercials (see, e.g., Drew and Weaver 1991), and others attribute clear learningeffects to television news (see, e.g., Bartels 1993;Drew and Reeves 1980; Lasorsa 1986; McLeod and McDonald 1985; Neuman, Just, and Crigler 1992; Sears and Chaffee 1979). Patterson and McClure's result remainsprominentin the literaturemore because it was the first to make an explicit contrast between learningfrom TV news and ads than because it is consistent with most subsequent studies. The "rule" that ads are importantto issue learningwhile news is not affects both researchand practice. Just, Crigler,and Wallach(1990),as one instance, decided in their campaignresearch not to study television news at all. They concentratedinstead on commercials(and on televised debates), citing Patterson and McClure as justification for their design. Diamond and Bates (1984) reported that political campaign managers' beliefs regardingtelevision news and ads are also affected by the Patterson-McClure conclusion, guidingdaily decisions in field campaigns. The proposition that ads are more informative than news is not groundedin any generaltheory (KrausandDavis 1981,p. 278). Indeed, it runs counterto many people's intuition-a featurethat has probably helped attractattentionto it. The more common view of politicalcomwho called them mercialsis probablythat of the prominentpractitioner "the most deceptive, misleading,unfairand untruthfulof all advertising" (Ogilvy 1985, pp. 210-13). Broadcastjournalists, while criticized on many sides, are generally conscientious reporters who strive to be informative (Halberstam 1979).Whilelocal news programsmay emphasizetrivialevents, political campaignsdo get considerableTV coverage-partly, perhaps, in response to criticisms of television news following the PattersonMcClurereport. To infer that voters do not benefitfrom following the news on television implies that this extensive professionaleffort goes for naught. Uncontrolled correlationalstudies suggest that TV news is less informativeabout politics than are newspapers, but this result does not hold up with controls for measurementerror (Bartels 1993), prior knowledge (Chaffee and Schleuder 1986; Chaffee, Ward, and Tipton 1970),or questioningabout "attention"to TV news ratherthan mere frequency of exposure (Chaffee and Schleuder 1986; McLeod and McDonald 1985). Still, empiricalcomparisonsof ads versus news

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

43

effects have been outnumberedin the literatureby repetition of Patterson and McClure'sconclusions, such as theirassertion (1976,p. 54) that network TV news is "simply not informative." Few surveys have asked parallelquestions about TV news and ads, so that any doubt a given study might cast on one part of the contrast does not extend to the other.' Almost all relevant comparisonshave been one-campaign(andusually one-locale) studies, potentiallyas limited in generalizabilityas was the original. In this article we report a series of surveys intended to test the generalizationwith data from a variety of election settings, using measures designed to provide a clearer comparisonof news versus ads as agencies of voter learning about political issues. Our general method is correlational, and we include here an extensive set of control variables. Individualdifferences in knowledge might be associated with differentialattention to either news or ads for reasons quite apartfrom the effects of the latter on the former. Knowledgeablepeople do, it is well established, seek furtherinformationin areas where they are already expert (Sears and Freedman 1967). So do well-educatedpeople, and years of schooling is one of several controls that we routinely enter before our tests of specificeffects of TV news and ads. We also enter stringentbehavioral controls where available, includingother kinds of political knowledge (apartfrom issue positions of candidates)and use of newspapers. Study Design Our project began in the presidentialcampaignof 1984 and includes five additional replications in two succeeding presidential elections plus one prominentU.S. Senate seat campaign.Most of these replications have been conducted as part of some largersurvey. For consistency, the analyses we reporthere have been organizedin line with a commonmodel specifiedfor this study, but as in any secondaryanalysis there is variationin the particulars. Details of the six surveys are described in Appendix table Al. The firstwas a survey of residents of Dane County, Wisconsin (N = 416), in October 1984 and dealt with the Reagan-Mondale campaign.2The second was a mail survey of newly naturalizedAmerican citizens in
1. Pattersonand McCluremeasuredthe two independentvariables quite differently, using a frequency-of-viewing question for TV news, but merely inferringexposure to ads on the basis of the amountof time the person spent watchingtelevision duringthe hours7:00-10:00P.M. 2. We thankJack McLeod of the Universityof Wisconsin-Madison for makingthese data availableto us. Some results from this survey are reportedin Owen (1991) and Zhao and Chaffee(1986).

44

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

northernCalifornia(N = 199), conductedin October 1988and dealing with the Bush-Dukakis campaign.3The third survey was also conducted in 1988, just before the November election, in Bloomington, Indiana (N = 252).4 The remainingthree surveys all took place in North Carolina.sNumber 4 was conducted in Orange County (N = 318) immediately following the 1990 U.S. Senate election in which Senator Jesse Helms was reelected over Harvey Gantt.6Number 5 was conducted in North Carolina's Research Triangle region (N = 360) in early October 1992, and number 6 was a statewide survey (N = 818) later that month, dealingwith the Bush-Clinton-Perot presidential campaign. This overall data set, then, provides a heterogeneous sampling of voters in dispersed locales.8 While randomsamplingprocedureswere employed in all cases, representativenessis not of primaryconcern for this article;our purpose is to test relationships,not to describe any particular population. This cross-sectional design is not the optimal method of testing for the existence of media effects; uncontrolledindividualdifferences in knowledgeand in relianceon television produce spurious(usuallynegative) correlations. Panel studies provide better evidence of informative effects (see, e.g., Chaffee and Schleuder 1986; Chaffee, Ward, But learninginfluand Tipton 1970;Neuman, Just, and Crigler1992).9 ences of television are in principle assumed to exist, in the research
throughthe San 3. The samplingframe consisted of persons who had been naturalized and Naturalization Service duringthe first 6 Franciscooffice of the U.S. Immigration months of 1988. Other results from the survey are reportedin Martinelli(1993) and Martinelli and Chaffee(in press). 4. The samplingframe was the telephone directoryfor the city of Bloomington,which ruralareas. We thankProfessorsDan Drew and David Weaverof includessurrounding IndianaUniversityfor makingthese data availableto us. Some results are reportedin in Drew and Weaver(1991),and in Zhao, Bleske, and Chaffee(1993a). 5. Data collection was partiallyfunded by a Junior Faculty Development Award to XinshuZhao from the Universityof North Carolina(UNC) at ChapelHill. The authors acknowledgethe assistanceof LeandroBatista,Glen L. Bleske, PrabuDavid, gratefully and Mass CommunicaSue Greer,and other studentsin the UNC School of Journalism tion. 6. Some findingsare reportedin Zhao et al. (1992). 7. Some resultsfromthe two surveysare reportedin Zhao, Bleske, and Chaffee(1993b). Datafromthe 1992North Carolinastatewidesurvey are also reportedin Chaffee,Zhao, and Leshner(1994). framesis consistentwith PattersonandMcClure'ssingle-county 8. Use of local sampling survey, and with most other tests of their conclusionscited here. A local survey, while it lacks the putative generalizabilityof a nationwide sample, covers a single media market,which is the level at which campaignadvertisingis allocated. Hence it avoids dispersionbeyond areas confoundingdifferencesin attentionto ads with geographical of campaignconcentration. period, in voters' 9. Pattersonand McClure(1976)measuredchanges,over a monthlong confidencein their knowledgeof Nixon and McGovern'sissue positions duringthe fall of 1972.

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

45

literaturein question; the issue we are addressingis one of relative strengthof effect, if any. The power of our design lies in control and replication.We presume that limitationsof this design are equivalent for TV news and ads. Our organizationof replicated surveys is intended to yield roughly comparablefindings, but exact identicality is impossible. Elections, media resources, issues, and election-relatedissue content in the media differ from one place and time to another. Each survey involved several collaborating researchers,so each questionnaireis the product of a unique negotiatingprocess. Interviewerswere in some cases professionals, and in others advanced students in research methods courses. Question wordingand response scales differ somewhat from study to study, as do the control variablesavailableto us (see AppenThese operadix table Al for question wordingsof majorvariables).10 if tional variationsmight pose a significantproblemfor interpretation we get wildly different outcomes from the different elections and research procedures. If, on the other hand, we find substantiallysimilar results, we could conclude that our findings are robust, depending more on what the surveys were measuringthan on exactly how it was measured.We will reserve these issues for discussion, afterexamining the results.
KNOWLEDGE MEASURES

We assume that there exist substantive differences between leading candidatesfor majoroffice on at least some policy issues.11Accuracy of perceptionof these issue differencesis our dependentmeasure. The generalprocedureused throughoutour studies is to ask, issue by issue, which of two majorcandidatesthe respondentthinks is more in favor of a given policy. Responses were scored 1 if correct, 0 if incorrector if no response was recorded.12 Determinationof the "correct" answer for each issue was made a prioriby the research team, then validated in part by the responses.13
10. Completewordingof all variablesis availableupon requestfrom Xinshu Zhao. 11. The issue knowledgeitems in these surveys are based on statementsmadeby candidates duringthe campaignsunder study, so we are testing voters' knowledgeof what was being said, not of what the candidatesmay have "really believed" in some more existentialsense. 12. When the question asked for an explicit comparisonon an issue where the two candidatesdiffered, the response "they have the same positions" was scored 0. But when the candidateswere located in the same category in responses to two separate questionsthatdid not ask for a comparison,a partialscore of 0.5 was assigned,since the respondentmay have perceiveda degreeof differentiation withinthe responsecategory offered. Parallelanalyses using the alternativescoring of 0 points for these response "ties" producedessentially the same results as in table 1. 13. For almost all items, more respondentsselected what we deemed the correct re-

46

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

The knowledge indices of these studies range in reliability (Cronbach's alpha)from .60 to .85, with a medianof .77 (see Appendixtable Al). Differentialskewness is an unavoidableproblem.The knowledge scores tend to bunch above the midpoint, while most of the other measuresin these studies are either normallydistributedor skewed to the right. Differently shaped distributionsattenuateobserved correlations, so our empiricalresults will tend to understatethe true correlations between knowledge and other variables. Because of both measurement error and skew, proportions of variance explained here representlower-limitestimates.14 These factors are, however, approximately constant across our replications, and so long as they obtain equally for tests of effects of TV news and ads, they should not bias that comparison.
TELEVISION ATTENTION MEASURES

Citizensare not wholly passive targetsof mediamessages; some effort must be made to acquire information. We followed the findings of Chaffee and Schleuder (1986; see also McLeod and McDonald 1985), by askingrespondentsabout their depth of attention15 to the two kinds of television content in question.
sponse than chose any of the alternatives.Assumingthat our own judgmentas to the "correct"answerto a given questioncould be faulty,we includein the analysesreported here only those items. When the omitteditems were includedin an alternateversion of the analyses, the findingswere almost identicalto those reportedin table 1. errorin responsesto the question, 14. Bartels(1993)found a greatdeal of measurement "How often do you watch the national network news on early evening TV-every evening,3 or 4 times a week, once or twice a week, or less often?" This errorattenuated raw correlationsbetween issue-differenceknowledgeand this "news exposure" item. either TV news or The same is likely the case for our measuresof attention,regarding candidatecommercials.For purposesof the comparisonsin this article,we assume that randomerroris approximately equal between our pairs of news and ads attentionmeasures;wordingwas very similarand the questionswerejuxtaposednear one anotherin the interviews. This assumptionis supportedby Appendixtable Al, where reliability scores are not consistentlygreaterfor either channelacross the various surveys. 15. We are assuming here that asking, "How much attention do you pay . . . ? stimulatesequally a respondent'srecall of mentaleffort directedtowardnews and toare designed ward ads. This may not always be the case. Television ads in particular to evoke attention through an autonomic orientingresponse (Reeves, Thorson, and televisionnews visuals (Newhagen Schleuder1986).The same can be true of captivating 1990),but that is not a typical element of political campaigncoverage. A respondent may be more aware, in recall, of intentionallyemitted behavior than of autonomic attentionthat has been momentarilycapturedby startlingstimulusdevices. Another associatedwith admitting to watching possible biasingfactor is the social undesirability self-reportthan television. If, say, attentionto ads is perceivedas a more embarrassing betweenmeasuresdespite attentionto TV news, this too could reducethe comparability identical wording. So long as social desirabilityexercises a constant bias across the range of self-reportmeasures for both news and ads, though, the variances remain comparable for our purposes.

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

CONTROL VARIABLES

47

In all our surveys we controlledfor majorcorrelatesof politicalknowledge, entering blocks of six to nine predictor variables into the first equationin multipleregression analysis. Beyond the usual interest in controllingfor extraneousinfluences, our objective was to equalize as much as possible the conditions under which the two media effects would be tested from study to study. Varianceand importanceof extraneous influences can differ between elections and study populations, so the effect of a particularcontrol variableis not constant. We attempted to strike a balance between maximizingcontrol variance and our need to maintaincomparabilityfor the explicit comparisons that are at stake in these analyses. We routinelyincludedlikely control variablessuch as educationand age (in all six studies), ability to speak English (in a survey of immigrants), and race (in the senatorialcampaigninvolving a black candidate). In two surveys there was a measure of general political knowledge (i.e., not about candidates' issue positions), which provided a stringentcontrol. Where there was no such measure, we added other controls to account for further variance before testing the media effects. The result is a set of control blocks that account for 27-30 percent of the variance in knowledge (table 1).16 This procedure of approximately equalizingthe strengthof the base equations (at a high and conserlevel) rendersacross-studycomparisonsboth interpretable The full set of control variablesfor each study is detailed in vative."7 section 2 of table 1. The entries there indicate only the direction and the significance,ratherthan the magnitude,of each beta weight. These are not intended as tests of hypotheses, only as controls before we examine the independentvariablesof central interest here.18

Results
Section 4 of table 1 displays the hierarchicalanalyses that are most central to this article. The entries on each line indicate the additional
16. Controlvariablesin otherpublishedstudies assessing mediaeffects on issue knowledge (Chaffeeand Schleuder1986;Drew and Weaver1991;Hofstetter,Zukin,and Buss 1978;McLeod and McDonald1985;Weaver and Drew 1993)have explainedfrom 0 to 26 percentof the variance. across studies, 17. If the varianceaccountedfor by the controlblock variedsignificantly so wouldthe residualvarianceto be explainedby an addedmediavariable.Since signifiregressionare calculatedagainstthe residualvariance, this cance tests in hierarchical The control blocks in these equationsreprewould confoundstatisticalinterpretation. sent a multiplecorrelationof at least R = .50 in each case. 18. Beta weights in a complex multipleregressionequationare confoundedby correlations betweenpredictors,whichcan create spuriouslyhighcoefficientsin some instances and suppress real relationshipsin others. Exact coefficients for all control entries in table 1 are availableon requestfrom Xinshu Zhao.

\0

~ ~
o

*.

.4

~~)n00

A4

~~

+ I~~+

<X

z
O CZ+j
00
_-

--

00

z
eq~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+

C40

u,ca

+t-e+

C-,

~~~~~~
-4

+-

++

+ +
*

+ +

-4~~~*

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t
Cd,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Cd,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f
4-4

0~~~~~~~~o-

+j >N

+j~~~~~~~

C)~~~~4)

'

* ..

-0~~~C ~~~~,-j-C

0CJ

0= C

C-

Cd-

d C

'~~~~~~~Z

Q 0~~0-

-4

13

48

(7N C)

+ C,d

75 C's

el!

Ci

OC)t-+ + +

>

t)
C's m C4-4

M
7:1

7:1

7:1 c) 4-J

C13

+ +
4-4

M
CZ
C'd
4-4 M W

E-0

C13

C13

4-4 "'40 tb

10

+J cu 0

'o
Cld

w 4.4
ON C)

C'S

x C's 4) 4) 0 'ti
C) C14

bo

U)
CZ

+C4
0

C,3
Cd

C's

'o =1
> 0

+J
> >

t)

>

+-4

C's

ci C13 +J 0
4
+J

0,4 4. O

'rm
> 0 0

c ci

C13 0

C4,

+J ci

w4
tb t) $-4 r -4 Cd 4.) 0

+J --M
+J

m r-Im +J 0 1> > 8 0

m
-4

CZ

>

$--4

O 4.
7:1 +J

z - E 4.)
+5 +5

+j

>

E _..,

7:1 (6:0).Rr"::I 2
0 C)
+Js-4

C) r.
0 0 s-4 0 C's

7:1

=1

4.) 7:1 0 Z -.4 Z Z

0
> cd u

m
4-4
u

0 0
C

0
V

> >
(,i

> >

's,

CZ

4.

49

50

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

amountof variance explained separatelyby attentionto news or ads, after the control variables have been accounted for.'9 Our main comparisonis between incrementalR2 values (and associated significance levels) for news and ads within each study.20 In table 1 we have tested each incrementto R2 againstzero, askingempiricallywhetherthe independent variablerepresentedin the second equationaccounts for any significantresidualvariance in issue knowledge. These incrementaltests are not unambiguouslyindicatorsof causal effects, nor even that knowledge was gained specifically during the campaignperiod. In the first two surveys, however, we were able to control for general political knowledge; the results are similarto the later surveys, which includedno such control. Anotherconcern is that some candidates'positions on some issues may be well known to some voters before the campaign,or that they can to some extent be inferred from knowledge of long-standingparty differences. Cross-sectional correlationscould be boosted if those who already know the differences between candidates pay more attention to campaignnews and ads. We note, though, that in a parallelfindingfrom a 1992California survey (Chaffee,Zhao, and Leshner 1994),neitherof the two attention measures(TV news or ads) was a significantpredictorof knowledgeof enduring partypositions-whereas the reverse-causation theorywould hypothesize a very strong relationship. Further, the beta weights in question were almost identical for news and ad attention, suggesting that the reverse causal relation, if it exists at all, is no strongerfor news than for ads. This result is in keeping with our workingassumption regardinguncontrolledextraneous factors.2' Any differences we find between news and ads are inconsistent with alternativeexplanations that apply equally to the two kinds of television fare.
EFFECTS OF TV NEWS ATTENTION

The main results for TV news are remarkablyconsistent across the six studies reportedin table 1 (sec. 4). In each survey, the increment to attention to TV news is statisticallysignificant.22 to R2 attributable
19. All beta weightsassociatedwith significant incrementsto R2in table 1 were positive and significantly greaterthan zero. 20. Comparingsignificancelevels of incrementsto R2 across the six studies can be R2 itself, whichis not a function misleading because of differing samplesizes. Comparing of samplesize, is more meaningful. 21. The null findingsin Chaffee, Zhao, and Leshner (1994)are not attributable to measurementerror. The same study found that TV news attentionwas a strongpredictor of information aboutthe three 1992candidates(Bush, Clinton,and Perot), althoughTV ad attentionwas not. 22. All significanteffects of both TV attentionmeasuresin table 1 representpositive beta weights.

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

Si

Further, all of the variance estimates testing the effects of TV news lie in a remarkably narrowrange:2 percent of the variance, or slightly higher. Given the moderate reliability and negative skewness of the dependent variable, plus the stringentcontrol block, we should conclude that the attentiona person pays to campaignnews on television does indeed enhance the likelihoodof acquiring politicalissue information. This result clearly contradictsone majorconclusion of Patterson and McClure;it falls into line with the studies that attributepositive political learning effects to television news. The findingis replicated here across a variety of campaigns, settings, and survey procedures, with almost no variationin the result.
EFFECTS OF TV ADS

Candidateadvertisingexhibits a muchless consistent patternof effects in table 1 (sec. 4). In half of the surveys attentionto advertisingis not a significantpredictorof issue knowledge;in one election, though, the advertisingattentionmeasure outstripsthe news measure. This is the 1990 North Carolinaelection for the U.S. Senate, where incumbent Senator Jesse Helms narrowly defeated his Democratic opponent, Harvey Gantt. That race gained nationalprominence;both candidates received majorcontributionsfrom outside the state, enablingthem to purchase considerable television advertising time. Issue differences were extreme, Helms being a leader of the Senate's conservative bloc while Ganttwas a black challengerand liberalby North Carolinastandards. It may be noteworthy that this unusual result is found in the only nonpresidentialelection among the six we have studied here. The medianR2 value for advertisingeffects in table 1 is an increment of about 1 percent of the variance. On average, then, the effect of TV news exceeds that of campaignads.23This contradictsthe second major componentof the generalizationofferedby Pattersonand McClure. We have, though, also found at least one campaign (Helms-Gantt) where the empiricalresult is the opposite of the usual case; it is similarly possible that Patterson and McClurealso happened to study an election in which campaignads were unusuallyinformative. The next question we address here is the uniqueeffect of each independent variable when the other is controlled. This comparison,presented in section 5 of table 1, favors news over ads in every instance except the anomalousHelms-Ganttcampaign.Indeed, that is the only case in which the residual effect of ads is significant,when the news effect is first controlled. The reciprocaltest, that of the residualeffect
23. AlthoughR2 values are additive and have a true zero point, the median 2-to-I news-to-adsratio should not be taken literally, since both estimates are attenuatedby skewness and unreliability.

52

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

of news when the advertisingeffect is controlled,produces significant effects in most of our studies. Overall then, while each channel can add to a generallearningeffect, it is normallythe more stable, institutionalized channel of news coverage that is more likely to contribute significantly.
CONTROLLING FOR OTHER MEDIA MEASURES

Five of the six surveys in our data set measured newspaper reading habits. While newspapereffects themselves are not of centralinterest in this analysis, they offer a potential challengeto our inferences. The newspaperstands as the most obvious majorcompetitorto television news, at least for the attentive audience. A correlationbetween newspaper reading and TV news/ads could confound our comparisonregardingthe two television sources of information. Five of the six surveys also included questions about frequency of exposure to TV news during the campaign, and two North Carolina surveys also included questions about frequency of exposure to each candidate's advertisements on TV.24 Other studies (Chaffee and Schleuder 1986;Chaffee, Zhao, and Leshner 1994;Drew and Weaver 1991;McLeod and McDonald 1985;Weaverand Drew 1993)often use such exposure measures for control and comparisonwhen testing for effects of attention. In section 6.1 of table 1, newspaperreadingand attention, and TV exposure measures are added as controls. These account for 1-6 percent (median 2.4) of the variance in knowledge. The newspaper appears to be importantin almost all replications, the Californiaimmigrant survey being the exception.25 The impact of TV exposure measures, however, was less clear. In none of these studies was the exposure index as strong a predictor as the correspondingattention measure(datanot shown). Comparing exposure measuresfor TV news and ads (in the two surveys where both were measured;table 1, sec. 6) produces results consistent with the attentionmeasures (sec. 4). In study 4 (Helms-Gantt, 1990), both exposure and attention measures indicate strongereffects of ads, while in study 5 each type of measure gives the advantageto news. In section 6.2 of table 1, the residual effects of TV news and ads are estimatedaftercontrolsfor all other mediameasures.26 These addi24. The medianreliabilitycoefficient(Cronbach'salpha)across all multiple-item exposure measureswas .70. 25. Chaffee,Nass, andYang(1990)found similarlythattelevisionnews is a moreimportant source of politicalinformation than is the Americannewspaperfor recent KoreanAmericanimmigrants. 26. This controlis not only quite stringent,it operatesmostly to erode the variancedue

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

53

all the news-adscomparisonsdetailed tionalcontrolsleave undisturbed in sections 4 and 5 of table 1. TV news maintainsits advantageover ads in five of the six studies. The increments to R2 attributableto TV news attention decline somewhat, rangingfrom 0.8 to 2.0 percent (medianof 1.2 percent) comparedto the earlierequationsthat did not include such close control variables. For TV ad attention, variance explained in this final set of equations ranges from 0.1 to 2.2 percent (medianof 0.7 percent). Overall, then, none of the other media measures in these surveys explains away the patternof consistent findings with regardto TV news in comparisonwith TV ads.

Discussion
This study is singularlyfocused. It is a test specifically of television impact on voter knowledge of issue differences between candidates, not of influenceon other perceptions of candidates,nor on directional opinions or voting. It is explicitly a comparison,with some care taken to employ comparativemeasurement,of just two forms of campaign television-news and ads. The total effects of all campaigntelevision, including interviews, debates, and discussion shows, and the larger impact of all mass media, remainfor other researchto explore. The audiencesurvey is not the only methodby which the institutions of TV news and candidate ads might be compared. Content analysis is one alternative.27 Definingthe exact boundariesof "TV news" today might be problematic, but in principle content analysis can indicate how much issue informationis availablein each subchannelof television.28 Content-based inferences about learning are precarious, though, unless one takes account of the greater credibility of news over ads (Jamieson 1992;Straughan,Bleske, and Zhao 1994).Another approachis to experimentwith presentationof the same issue information in news versus advertisingformats, as has been done with corporate publicity messages (Salmon et al. 1985). Or one might study the precepts of channel selection used by politicianswho want to emphato the TV news attentionmeasure,which is more likely to be correlated with newspaper readingand attentionthan is TV ad attention.Whileeach attentionmeasureis likely to be correlatedwith its corresponding exposuremeasure,there are exposurecontrolsfor ad attentionin only two studies;this is the case in five studies for news attention. 27. Pattersonand McClure(1976)examinedthe issue content of ads that were shown in their area in 1972and comparedthem with networkearly evening newscasts. They in the ads than in those news programs. found more issue information 28. Ourattentionmeasuresassume that both campaignnews and ads normallycontain information relevantto policy issues, althoughthe exact amountor kind may vary. In to a channel,it may be that there was instanceswhere we can findno effect attributable insufficient informational content in it.

54

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

size an issue difference, or by voters who are seeking informationon issues. The comparisonof agencies of political learningis a rich question, not fully addressableby any single form of research. While content analysis investigates the availabilityof information, survey studies often focus on the next stage of the communication, askinghow effectively informationreaches the audience throughvarious channels. In that regardthis study yields substantialfindings.First, the resultsfor TV news are highlyconsistent; the particulars of a given to in matter little the final The study appear very result. six surveys were conducted under quite differentconditions and employed a considerable variety of measures, yet they almost all point in the same direction. This finding extends the conclusion from content analysis that "patterns of presidential election coverage are remarkablyuniform" and "stable" in successive elections, and across differentareas (Graber1989, p. 207). Not only are our results consistent, but they are not trivialin magnitude. The contribution of attention to TV news represents some 6 percentof the total varianceexplainedby all the predictorsin our total equations. This figure could be multipliedfurtherif the raw correlations were disattenuatedfor measurementerror (Bartels 1993). We have also not taken account of additionallearning via interpersonal sources that are themselves informed by mass media. Our findings take their place alongside a numberof other studies that might serve to rehabilitate the low reputationof TV news in manyacademiccircles. The result that does vary substantiallyacross studies is the effect attributable to campaignadvertisements.Commercials,in contrast to institutionalizedtelevision news, are generated sporadicallyby campaign staffs dedicated to doing whatever it takes to win votes (and attractcontributions).Campaignprofessionalsare constantly devising innovative ploys in a competitive situation; advertising is only one channel in a tactical mix. Some candidatesmay use commercialspurBut that is not posively to informvoters about their issue positions.29 a stable, predictablepattern;a campaignmanagerfor a winningcandidate is as likely to be admiredprofessionally for deft use of imageenhancingor personal attack ads, or of direct mail and partisan appeals, say, as for ads that might enhance voters' issue learning. Televised political advertisingis not a channel to which the enlightenment of the electorate can-or need-be entrusted.
29. The winningcampaignsof RichardNixon in 1972and of Jesse Helms in 1990used TV ads to portrayliberalpositions of their opponentsas extreme. The same, however, (Jamieson1993),for whichtable 1 reports has been saidof GeorgeBush's 1988campaign a more usual low-impactresult in two replications.Hence issue-centeredadvertising tactics alone would not account for the similarityof results between the 1972NixonMcGovernrace (Pattersonand McClure1976)and our uniquefindingin the 1990HelmsGanttrace.

iD

= .O

>

.D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~0C4

4
c 6 ? 8 E ]: C4.-c

tu
Q

00 !vzgUacXSCX 0

X
1t

| i S~~~~~~t

;,, C>

WI

(q t Ci;g
E l M E

Q -t i X X ;en

; c 2 c

0~

ch

C,
CdC od

S 42,

tW

od

oct

0 0, Z., =

~~~~~a

+,

t~

P"~~~~~~~~~~
4 .4

e 2 e S j e =e.~~~~$.
Z Z PQ

u XX9eu
z

XE

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

57

A.
1.

Information Related to Table 1 and Appendix Table Al

BASIC INFORMATION ON SIX SURVEYS

Yearand month. Period when interviewswere conducted. State, area sampled, and specialfeatures. (1) Dane County, Wisconsin:includesstate capitalandUniversityof Wisconsin-Madison; (2) CentralCalifornia region:newly naturalized citizens; (3) Bloomington,Indiana,and environs: includescities/ includesIndianaUniversity;(4) OrangeCounty,NorthCarolina: towns of Carrboro, ChapelHill, Hillsborough,and Pittsboro,andUniversityof North Carolina;(5) ResearchTrianglearea (20 cities/towns includingRaleigh, Durham, andChapelHill), NorthCarolina: includesstatecapitalandthreemajor universities;(6) North Carolinastatewide:the CarolinaPoll. Election. Presidentialor U.S. Senatorialcampaignsetting. Prelpostelection. Time of interviews relative to Election Day. Numberof respondents(N). Completedinterviews used in the analysis. telephone sampling. Sampling method. Rdm Dgt = random-digit-dialing Intrvl = interval samplingof telephone book (Indianasurvey) or of address and NaturalizationService (Californiasurvey). list providedby Immigration Interviewmethod. Via mail or telephone. Response rate. For the Indianaand North Carolinasurveys, response rate was calculatedby dividingthe numberof completedinterviewsby the number attempted. surveys are conservativeestimates, Response rates for random-digit-dialing because an unknownnumberof nonresponsesare nonresidentphones or not in operation. The response rate for the 1984 Wisconsin survey is unknown. The best estimateavailableis based on nonrefusalrates of four similarsurveys of other years (1979, 1986, 1987, 1989)in the same county by the same class taughtby the same instructor.Calculatedas the numberof completedinterviewsdivided by the numberof people who answeredthe phone, these rates rangedfrom 65 to 71 percent. Appendixtable Al reportsthe lowest estimate (65 percent). For the Californiaimmigrantsurvey, the number of contacts cannot be and Naturalization Service list was somecalculatedbecause the Immigration what dated and undoubtedlycontainedsome invalidaddresses;approximately 3 percent of the mailed questionnaireswere returnedas undeliverableby the U.S. Postal Service. Immigrants are likely to move often in their early years in the United States, and there is no way to determinewhetherthe person to whom a questionnairewas addressed ever received the envelope, opened it, or read it or its cover letter. Appendixtable Al reportsthe minimumestimate that of response rate, which is simplythe numberof completedquestionnaires were returned,as a percentage of the numberof mailingsthat were not returnedby the postal service.
2.
KNOWLEDGE MEASURES (APPENDIX TABLE

Al)

Knowledgeitemformat. The formatof the issue knowledgemeasures.Compare:relativepositions of the candidateswere calculatedon the basis of sepa-

58

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

rate questions about each; for example, "Please tell me where [Ronald Reagan/WalterMondale] stands with regard to each of the following statements." A sample statement: "The Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionshould be passed." Match: respondents were asked to match each policy statementwith the candidatewho was more likely to favor it; for example, "Who is more likely to favor the following statement?'More areas shouldbe opened for oil drilling.'" Number of candidates. The numberof candidatesabout whom knowledge questions were asked. Number of issues. Number of items (policy issues) used to construct a knowledgeindex. Cronbach'salpha and skewness. These statisticsindicatethe reliabilityand deviation from a normal distribution,respectively, of each issue knowledge index. Negative skewness means that the distributionis skewed to the left, with few cases at the low levels and a mean that is higherthan the median.

3.

MEDIA MEASURES

For TV attention, newspaper reading and attention, and TV exposure, an empty cell indicates the variablewas not measuredin the survey. Measurement. Three-dummy: three dummy entries represent a fourcategoryindependentvariableset. One-item:one question was the measure. Two-item:two responses, such as one for each candidate, were summed to create the measure. Response scale unit. Estimationtasks asked of respondent. Attn.: "attention" questions;for example, "How much attentiondo you pay to . .. a lot, some, little, or none?" Days: numberof days questions;for example, "How many days in the past week did you read . .. ?" Stories/Ads: quantityquestions; for example, "How many news stories/advertisementshave you seen on TV-many, some, a few, or none?" How often: frequencyquestions; for example, "How often do you read ... often, sometimes, rarely, or never?" Contentreferent. Candt.: candidate-specific; for example, "How much attention did you pay to the TV ads for Bush's election campaign?"Campaign: refers to campaignbut not a specific candidate;for example, "How much attention have you paid to television news about the campaign?" Politics: refersto governmentor politics in general,ratherthancampaignor candidates; for example, " How often do you readin your newspaperstoriesaboutnational governmentand politics?" Natl.: refers to national-levelevents; for example, "How many days in the past week did you watch Americannationalnews on television?" TV news: refersto TV news in general;for example, "How many days out of the last seven did you watch local or nationalnews on television?" Paper: refers to newspaper without specifying content; for example, "How many days in the past week did you read an Americannewspaper?" Between-itemr. For indices based on more than one item, Pearson's r is an indicatorof interitemreliability.In the one case where there are three items, the mean of the three coefficients is reported.

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

59

B.
1.

Question Wordings for Major Variables

1984
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

Issue knowledge. "For each statement . . . where (do) you think Ronald Reaganand WalterMondalestand?" (stronglyagree, agree, disagree,strongly disagree, or neutral). "The Equal Rights Amendmentto the U.S. Constitutionshould be passed." "The present federal deficit will not hurt continuedeconomic recovery." "If necessary, income taxes should be raised before makingfurthercuts in federal entitlementprograms." "The only way to prevent nuclearwar is to continue buildingweapons, at least at our present rate." Amendmentgiving the states the right "There should be a Constitutional to restrict abortions." "Organizedprayer should be allowed in the public schools." Attentionto TVnews. Three dummyvariablesbased on the followingquestion: "How about television news stories-Would you be more likely to pay closer attentionto a news story about the Reagan-Bushcampaignor a story campaign?" (both equally, Reagan-Bush,Monabout the Mondale-Ferraro neither-other). dale-Ferraro, Attentionto TV ads. Three dummyvariablesbased on the following question: "Which type of television advertisementwould you be most likely to or an ad for Mondale-Ferraro?" pay closer attentionto, an ad for Reagan-Bush neither-other). (both equally, Reagan-Bush,Mondale-Ferraro, Generalknowledge.The following questions were asked: "Can you name one of Wisconsin's United States Senators?" "What party does he belong to?" "Can you name Wisconsin's other U.S. Senator?" "What party does he belong to?" "Can you tell me the name of your U.S. congressman?" "What party does he belong to?" "Can you tell me the name of the candidatethat is runningagainstyour congressman?" "What party does s/he belong to?" "How long is the term of office for a U.S. Senator?" "How long is the term of office for a United States Representative?" Self-reportknowledge. "On a scale of one to ten where one is VERY LITTLE and ten is VERY MUCH, how much would you say that YOU know aboutpolitics?" Newspaper reading. "How often do you read in your newspaper . . . national governmentand politics?" (frequently,sometimes, rarely, or never).

60 2.
1988
PRESIDENTIAL IN NORTHERN

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

ELECTION, CALIFORNIA NEWLY NATURALIZED MAIL

CITIZENS

(SELF-ADMINISTERED

QUESTIONNAIRE)

Issue knowledge."Whichcandidatefavors more (Bush, Dukakis, no difference, or don't know):" "Increase the minimumwage." "Provide militaryaid to NicaraguanContras." "Execute convicted drug kingpins." "Requireteachers to lead Pledge of Allegiance." "Restrict abortionsin Constitution." "Requirebalancedbudget in Constitution. "Build MX missile system." "Increase business income taxes." "Build the 'Star Wars' defense system." "Provide for prayerin schools in Constitution." "Give tax incentives to oil industry." "Provide health care for every American." "Restrict ownershipof handguns." "StrengthenconventionalU.S. militaryforces." "Restrict imports." "Do more for affirmativeaction." "Raise taxes on the rich." "Fight communistexpansion." "Fund more day care programs." "Sanctions against South Africa." "Restrict immigration." "Lower unemployment." "Reduce taxes." "Reduce militaryspendingas much as possible." "Appointliberaljudges to the SupremeCourt." "Provide equal rightsfor women in Constitution." Attentionto TVnews. "Indicatehow muchattentionyou have given to U.S. nationalpolitics on television" (scale 0-3, where 0 means "no attention"and 3 means "very much"). Attentionto TV ads. "For each of the following, indicatehow much attention you have given to it on television" (scale 0-3, where 0 means "no attention" and 3 means "very much"): "Commercialsfor Bush" "Commercialsfor Dukakis" Generalknowledge. "Give the name and political party of the following:" "Governorof California" "U.S. Senatorfrom Californiawho is runningfor reelection" "Other CaliforniaU.S. Senator"

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

61

"Governorof New York" "Which party has the most membersin the House of Representativesin Washington?" "Which party has the most membersin the U.S. Senate in Washington?" Newspaper reading. "How many days in the past week did you read an Americannewspaper?"(fill in answer). Attention to newspaper stories. "Indicate how much attention you have given to U.S. nationalpolitics in the newspapers"(scale 0-3, where 0 means "no attention" and 3 means "very much"). Exposure to TV news. "How many days in the past week did you watch Americannationalnews on television?" (fill in answer).

3.

1988

PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION,

BLOOMINGTON,

INDIANA

Issue knowledge. "Whichcandidate,GeorgeBush or MichaelDukakis, has said he . . ." "favors a legal ban on abortion?" "favors the death penalty?" "opposes aid to the Contrarebels in Nicaragua?" "favors time for prayerin schools?" "favors cuts in the star wars program?" "favors restrictingimportsto reduce the trade deficit?" "favors reduced spendingin generalfor the military?" "favors more spendingon social programs?" ''opposes an increase in the minimumwage?" "Which vice presidentialcandidate . "authoreda job trainingact?" "has been accused of acceptingfunds from importantpeople who were then permittedto attend a breakfastmeetingwith him?" Attention to TV news. "How much attention do you pay to news stories about the presidentialcampaignwhen you see them on television news?" (a lot, some, a little, none, DK/NA). Attention to TV ads. "How much attention, if any, have you paid to the campaign?"(a lot, campaigncommercialson television duringthe presidential some, very little, none, DK/NA). Newspaperreading. "Abouthow manydays a week do you reada non-local the IndianapolisStar, the Wall paper, such as the Louisville Courier-Journal, Street Journal, or the New YorkTimes?" Attentionto newspaperstories. "How much attentiondo you pay to news stories about the presidentialelection campaignwhen you read the paper?" (a lot, some, a little, none). Exposure to TV news. "How many days a week do you watch a national networknewscast, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN on television?"

62

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

4. 1990 U.S. SENATOR ELECTION, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Issue knowledge."Wheredo you thinkHarveyGanttandJesse Helms stand on the following?"(stronglyagree, agree, neutral,disagree,stronglydisagree, don't know): "Educationshould receive more federal funding." "The federalgovernmentshould increase spendingon defense." "There should be tougherlaws prohibitingindustrialpollution." "The government'swelfare spendingto help the poor should be decreased." "It should be guaranteedthat a certainproportionof job positions go to minorities." "A drug-related killing should be punishedwith the death penalty." "Women should have the legal rightto stop a pregnancy." Attentionto TV news. Two questions, one for each candidate:"When you saw these television news stories on the (Helms/Gantt)campaign,how much attentiondid you pay to them?" (close, some, little, not at all). Attention to TV ads. Two questions, one for each candidate:"When you saw these (Helms/Gannt)commercials, how much attention did you pay to them?" (close, some, little, not at all). Exposureto TVnews. Two questions, one for each candidate:"How many news stories about the (Helms/Gantt)campaigndid you see on TV-many, some, a few, or none?" Exposureto TV ads. Two questions, one for each candidate:"By the time the election was held, how many advertisementsfor the (Helms/Gantt)campaign did you see on TV-many, some, a few, or none?"
5.

1992

PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION,

RESEARCH

TRIANGLE

AREA,

NORTH

CAROLINA

Issue knowledge. "Which candidate, George Bush, Bill Clinton, or Ross Perot, is more likely to favor the following statements?" "Taxes should be increased only for the richest Americans." "Federal gasoline taxes should be increasedby 50 cents to pay for building new roads and bridges." "The United States should go slow in cutting emissions to protect the ozone layer." "A Constitutional amendmentshould ban abortionsexcept in cases where a mother'slife is in danger." "People with incomes higherthan $25,000 should pay income taxes on their Social Securitybenefits to help cut the budget deficit." "The capital gains tax should be cut in half." "Militaryspending:The defense budget has been cut as much as it should."

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

63

"The governmentshould pay college costs for young people who are willing to repay the debt with public service." Attentionto TV ads. "Duringthe past several weeks, when you saw television news programsthat covered the candidates' positions on issues facing the nation, how much attention did you pay to them?" (close, some, little, not at all). Attentionto TVads. "Duringthe past severalweeks, when you saw political ads that talked about importantissues facing the nation, how much attention did you pay to them?" (close, some, little, not at all). Newspaper reading. "How many days a week do you read about election news in a newspaper?" Exposure to TV news. Three items, one for each candidate:"How many news storieshave you seen on TV thattalkedabout(GeorgeBush/Bill Clinton/ Ross Perot's) position on importantissues-many, some, a few, or none?" Exposure to TV ads. Two items, for two candidates (Ross Perot was not includedbecause he hadjust announcedhis reentry into the race but had not yet released any advertisements):"How many television advertisementsfor (Bush/Clinton)have you seen that emphasized importantissues facing the country-many, some, a few, or none?" 6. 1992
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, STATEWIDE SAMPLE OF NORTH

CAROLINA

Issue knowledge. "Which candidate is more likely to favor the following statement?" (Bush, Clinton, Perot, none of them, all three equally, don't know, no answer): "Taxes should be raised for those households who earn more than $90,000a year." "The federal budget deficit should be reduced by imposinga 50 cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax over five years." "More areas should be opened for oil drilling." "A Constitutionalamendmentshould ban abortionsexcept in cases where a mother's life is in danger." "The nation should have universalhealth care paid for by employers." "The capitalgains tax should be cut in half." "The governmentshould pay college costs for young people who are willing to repay the debt with public service." Attention to TV news. Two items, one for each candidate: "How much attentionhave you paid to television news coverage about George Bush/Bill Clinton?"(a lot, some, only a little, not at all). Attentionto TVads. Two items, one for each candidate:"How much attention have you paid to television commercialsfor George Bush/Bill Clinton?" (a lot, some, only a little, not at all). Newspaper reading. "How many stories about the election have you read in the newspaper?"(a lot, some, only a few, or none at all).

64

Xinshu Zhao and Steven H. Chaffee

Exposure to TV news. "How many days out of the last seven did you watch the local or nationalnews on television?"

References
Bartels, LarryM. 1993. "Message Received: The PoliticalImpactof Media Exposure."AmericanPolitical Science Review 87:267-85. Chaffee, Steven H., CliffordNass, and Seung-MockYang. 1990. "The BridgingRole of Televisionin Immigrant PoliticalSocialization."Human Communication Research 17:266-88. Chaffee, Steven H., and Joan Schleuder. 1986. "Measurement and Effects of Attentionto Media News." Human Communication Research 13:76-107. Chaffee, Steven H., L. Scott Ward,and LeonardP. Tipton. 1970. "Mass and PoliticalSocialization."JournalismQuarterly Communication 47:647-59. Chaffee, Steven H., Xinshu Zhao, and Glenn Leshner. 1994. "PoliticalKnowledge and the Campaign Media of 1992." Communication Research 21:305-24. MA: MIT Press. Diamond,Edwin. 1978. Good News, Bad News. Cambridge, Diamond,Edwin, and Stephen Bates. 1984. The Spot: TheRise of Political Advertisingon Television.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Drew, Dan, and Byron Reeves. 1980. "Learningfrom a TelevisionNews Story." Research 7:121-35. Communication Drew, Dan, and David Weaver. 1991. "Voter Leaming in the 1988Presidential 68:27-37. Election:Did the Debates and the MediaMatter?"JournalismQuarterly Finkel, Steven. 1993. "Reexaminingthe 'MinimalEffects' Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns."Journalof Politics 55:1-21. Graber,Doris. 1989. Mass Media and AmericanPolitics. 3d ed. Washington,DC: Congressional Quarterly. Halberstam,David. 1979. ThePowers ThatBe. New York: Knopf. Hofstetter,RichardC., Cliff Zukin, and TerryF. Buss. 1978. "PoliticalImageryand in an Age of Television." JournalismQuarterly Information 55:562-69. Jamieson,KathleenHall. 1992.Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction,and Democracy. New York: OxfordUniversityPress. . 1993. "The SubversiveEffects of a Focus on Strategyin News Coveragein Presidential Campaigns."In 1-800-President (Reportof the TwentiethCentury of 1992),pp. 35-61. New York: Fund Task Force on Television and the Campaign TwentiethCenturyFund. Just, Marion,Ann Crigler,and Lori Wallach. 1990. "ThirtySeconds or Thirty Minutes:WhatViewers Learnfrom Spot Advertisementsand CandidateDebates." Journalof Communication 40(3):120-33. Kaid, Linda Lee. 1981. "PoliticalAdvertising."In Handbookof Political ed. Dan Nimmo and Keith Sanders,pp. 249-71. Beverly Hills, Communication, CA: Sage. Kraus, Sidney, and Dennis K. Davis. 1981. "PoliticalDebates." In Handbookof ed. Dan Nimmo and Keith Sanders,pp. 273-96. Beverly Political Communication, Hills, CA: Sage. Lasorsa, Dominic. 1986. "TV News as a Channelof PoliticalInformation."Paper and presentedat the annualmeetingof the Associationfor Educationin Journalism Mass Communication, Norman, OK. Mediain the PoliticalIssue Martinelli,KathleenA. 1993. "The Role of the Campaign Learningof New U.S. Citizens." Ph.D. dissertation,StanfordUniversity. New-Voter Martinelli,KathleenA., and Steven H. Chaffee. 1995. "Measuring Learningvia Three Channelsof PoliticalInformation." Journalismand Mass Communication Quarterly,vol. 74 (Spring). McLeod, Jack M., and Daniel McDonald. 1985. "Beyond Simple Exposure:Media and TheirImpacton PoliticalProcesses." Communication Research Orientations 12:3-34.

Campaign Ads vs. TV News as Information Sources

Neuman, W. Russell, MarionR. Just, and Ann N. Crigler.1992. Common

65

Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: University

of ChicagoPress.
Newhagen, John E. 1990. This Evening's Bad News: Effects of Compelling Negative Television News Images on Memory. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Nimmo, Dan. 1978. Political Communication and Public Opinion in America. Santa

Monica, CA: Goodyear. Ogilvy, David. 1985. Ogilvyon Advertising.New York: VintageBooks. and Election O'Keefe, GarrettJ., Jr., and L. ErwinAtwood. 1981. "Communication
Campaigns." In Handbook of Political Communication, ed. Dan Nimmo and Keith

Sanders,pp. 329-57. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Owen, Diana. 1991. Media Messages in American Presidential Elections. New York:

Greenwood. Patterson,ThomasE., and RobertD. McClure.1976. The UnseeingEye: TheMyth of

Television Power in National Elections. New York: Putnam.

Reeves, Byron, Esther Thorson, and Joan Schleuder. 1986. "Attentionto Television: Measures." In Perspectiveson Media PsychologicalTheories and Chronometric Effects, ed. JenningsBryantand Dolf Zillmann,pp. 251-79. Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Salmon,CharlesT., LeonardN. Reid, James Pokrywczynski,and RobertW. Willett. 1985. "The Effectiveness of Advocacy AdvertisingRelative to News Coverage."
Communication Research 12:546-67.

Sears, David O., and Steven H. Chaffee. 1979. "Uses and Effects of the 1976 Debates: An Overview of EmpiricalStudies." In The GreatDebates: Ford vs. IndianaUniversity Carter,1976, ed. Sidney Kraus, pp. 223-61. Bloomington: Press. Sears, David O., and JonathanL. Freedman.1967. "Selective Exposureto A CriticalReview." Public OpinionQuarterly Information: 31:194-213. Social Sciences CitationIndex. 1976-93. Social Sciences CitationIndex. Philadelphia: Institutefor ScientificInformation. Straughan, Dulcie, Glen L. Bleske, and Xinshu Zhao. 1994. "ModelingFormatand Source Effects of an Advocacy Message." Paperpresentedat the annualmeeting of the Associationfor Educationin Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta. Weaver,David, and Dan Drew. 1993. "Voter Learningin the 1990Off-YearElection:
Did the Media Matter?" Journalism Quarterly 70:356-68.

Zhao, Xinshu, Glen L. Bleske, and Steven H. Chaffee. 1993a."AudienceLearning from Television News and Ads duringa PoliticalCampaign."Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the International Communication Association, Washington DC. . 1993b."Is It a Wall?A Tree? A Rope? Or an Elephant?Television News and Ads as Sources of Issue Information."Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the and Mass Communication, Associationfor Educationin Journalism Kansas City, MO. Zhao, Xinshu, and Steven H. Chaffee. 1986. "PoliticalAds vs. News as Sources of Issue Information."Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the Associationfor Educationin Journalism and Mass Communication, Norman,OK. Zhao, Xinshu, Steven H. Chaffee, Glen L. Bleske, and PrabuDavid. 1992. "TelevisionNews and Ads as Sources of Issue Information-Another Piece for the Puzzle Board." Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the Associationfor Educationin Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal.