Copy Test

David Vitter Copy Test Report Same Rules Ad 2016 Louisiana Senatorial Campaign
James Carson MC 3510 Political Communication Research Professor York December 1, 2013

Copy Test
David Vitter Copy Test Report Same Rules Ad 2016 Louisiana Senatorial Campaign Campaign Context The 2016 U.S. Senate race is still years away. However a recent poll showed Vitter polling ahead of Holden by a 59 % to 41% margin among Louisianans. Ridout and Franz (2011) discuss the importance of campaign context. According to Ridout and Franz, in Senate races advertising has the potential to have a bigger impact because many people are not aware of the candidates or their issue positions. Whether a candidate is an incumbent or a challenger is also important. According to Ridout and Franz (2011) an incumbent is usually better known than a challenger. It is more difficult for incumbents to persuade voters decisions because a voters image of an incumbent is based on previous information. According to Ridout and Franz (2011), challengers advertisings have an opportunity to shape the image of the candidate, and persuade voters to support him or her. Timing of the advertisement is also important. According to Ridout and Franz (2011), advertising early in a campaign is crucial. While many will argue that potential voters are not paying attention early in a campaign, setting the agenda for the entire campaign early is a key factor. The competitiveness of the race is also important. Ridout and Franz (2011) believe that more potential voters will be paying attention because more people pay attention to competitive campaigns and there are more persuasive advertisements in these types of campaigns. Because Holdens is challenging an incumbent, trailing in the polls and it is early in the race, it is imperative that campaign messages attack Vitter on his anti-women and equal rights votes in the Senate. Vitter should be portrayed as cold, dishonest and anti-civil rights. Messages should highlight the need for change in an effort to reshape not only Louisiana but the country as a whole in terms of equality after years of Republic leadership in Louisiana. Ad Development Considering the campaign context and Braders (2006) experimental analyses, I developed a candidate profile and ad storyboard highlighting negative aspects of Vitters voting record on women and equal rights issues. Brader (2006) suggests that negative ads have stronger effects when they incorporate implicit fear cues such as threatening cues with tense, discordant music and grainy, black-and-white pictures of violence and drug use. These cues increase the probability participants will vote, and increase the probability their vote will change relative to negative ads lacking implicit fear cues. These cues also increase reliance on

contemporary evaluations and facilitate persuasion. In addition, these cues focus viewer attention on issues presented and traits of candidate being attacked or compared, stimulating cognitive processing about both the issues and the candidate traits. (Brader, 2006) Since Holden is polling behind Vitter, I decided to create a negative ad with fear cues based on Vitters anti-women and equal rights narrative. These issues are compared against the Vitter Amendment that calls for members of Congress to have the same healthcare as citizens of the United States under the Affordable Care Act. This ad contains video clips of Vitter saying same rules when talking about the Affordable Care Act. The video also has pictures of women looking frustrated in the workplace. In addition, I used an instrumental song Stage a Breakout as the ads musical tone. The song is discordant and cues fear. Based on extant research and theory, I would hypothesize the following effects of exposure to a negative ad containing fear cues: Attitudes H1a: Males will hold more negative attitudes toward Vitter after viewing the ad. H1b: Females will hold more negative attitudes toward Vitter after viewing the ad.

Traits H2a: Males will perceive Vitter as less honest after viewing the ad. H2b: Females will perceive Vitter as less honest after viewing the ad.

Voting H3a: Males will be less likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad. H3b: Females will be less likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad. Method Sample. To copy test ad effects, I embedded my campaign ad called Same Rules in a Qualtrics online survey. The copy test used a non-random, convenience sampling technique that consisted of Louisiana friends, family and acquaintances all potential voters (n = 17). Data collection ran from October 30, 2013 to December 4, 2013.

Measures. I included a variety of survey measures designed to capture variation in respondents attitudes toward Vitter, perceptions of Vitters traits and voting intentions. I also included a standard block of sociodemographic variables (sex, age, etc.). The variable called attitudes toward Vitter was assessed using an adapted version of the American National Election Studys (ANES) 100-point feeling thermometer item. On this scale, scores of 0 indicate negative attitudes toward a candidate. Scores of 100 mean that respondents were attitudinally positive toward Vitter. Perception of candidate traits was measured with one item. This item asked respondents if they felt Vitter possessed the trait of honest. For the item, respondents could answer on a six-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Other traits items were used be were excluded from the analysis because they did not directly pertain to the abovementioned hypotheses. Vote intentions were measured using a 100-point scale item that asked respondents to report the likelihood of voting for Vitter in the next election. Respondents could answer from 0 to 100, with high scores indicating a greater likelihood of voting for Vitter. Procedure & Analysis. Survey respondents were asked the above questions before and after viewing the Vitter Same Rules ad. In this sense, the study employs a quasi-surveyexperimental design without random assignment or a control group. First, respondents were asked question about attitudes toward Vitter, trait perceptions, and voting intentions. Respondents viewed the Vitter ad, and then re-answered an identical set of questions. Respondents then answered sociodemographic questions, were thanked for their participation and dismissed. To analyze these data, I used one analytical procedure: means comparison analysis (MCA). This procedure allowed me to compare attitudes, trait perceptions and vote intentions before and after viewing the Same Rules ad. Assuming no extraneous variables interfered with effects, the study design allowed me to test causal effects of the advertisement on Louisiana voters. Results Attitudes. I used a means comparison analysis to determine the effects of viewing the ad on attitudes toward Vitter. Results from this analysis are shown in Table 1.1. As shown in Table 1.1, attitudes toward Vitter were higher before viewing the ad for both males and females. (Males M = 37.92, sd = 29.57, Females M= 49.6, sd = 36.64) than after viewing the ad

(Male M = 21.82, sd = 24.34), Females M = 31.2, sd = 39.95). These results provide support for H1a and H1b. It appears the ad created more negative feelings toward Vitter.

Table 1.1 Effect of Same Rules Ad on Attitudes toward Vitter

Effect of Ad Viewing on Vitter Attitudes, By Sex

Sex Male Ad Viewing Pre-Test Post-Test 37.92 21.82

Female 49.6 31.2

Total 41.5 24.75

Trait Perceptions. Trait perceptions were measured using an ordinal outcome a seven-point Likert scale. Typically this is considered a categorical measure. However, since sample size was small, and dispersion across the variable was likely small, I decided to treat this variable as pseudo-interval level. This simply means I treated that variable as a quasicontinuous variable, using a means comparison analysis to test ad effects on honest. Table 1.2 shows the effect of viewing the ad on honest. Before viewing the ad, both males and females had a low mean Vitter honest score (Males M = 2.64, sd = 1.12, Females M = 3.6, sd = 1.14). Viewing the ad had a slight effect on Vitters honest ratings (Males M = 2, sd = 0.89, Female M = 3, sd = 1.23). This suggests that the ad minimally succeeded in making Vitter appear as less honest with regard to women and equal right issues. H2a and H2b are supported.

Table 1.2 Effect of Same Rules Ad on Perception of Honest Trait of Vitter

Effect of Ad Viewing on Perception of Honest Trait of Vitter

Sex Male Ad Viewing Pre-Test Post-Test 2.64 2

Female 3.6 3

Total 2.94 2.31

Intention to Vote. Next I analyzed ad effects on Vitter vote intentions using a means comparison analysis. Results from the MCA are shown in Table 1.3. This table illustrates the direct effect of viewing the ad on intentions to vote for Vitter in 2016. Viewing the Vitter ad had an overall negative effect on Vitter vote intentions. Before ad exposure, all respondents were more likely to say they would vote for Vitter (Males M = 35.82, sd = 41.80, Females M = 52.8, sd = 32.87) than after viewing the ad (Males M = 34.09, sd = 39.67, Females M = 31.8, sd = 35.10). H3a and H3b are supported. Table 1.3 Effect of Same Rules Ad Viewing on Probability of Voting for Vitter Effect of Ad Viewing on Probability of Voting for Vitter

Sex Male Ad Viewing Pre-Test Post-Test 35.82 34.09

Female 52.8 31.8

Total 41.13 33.38

Consistent with Brader (2006), Figure 1.1 shows that negative ads exposure with fear cues increase the probability a participants vote will change relative to negative ads lacking implicit fear cues. H3a and H3b are supported.
Figure 1.1

Effect of Ad Viewing on Probably of Voting for Vitter

60 50 40 30

20
10 0 Pre-Test Post-Test

Effect of Ad Viewing on Probablity of Voting for Vitter Sex Male Effect of Ad Viewing on Probablity of Voting for Vitter Sex Female Effect of Ad Viewing on Probablity of Voting for Vitter Sex Total

Conclusion A preliminary copy test of the Same Rules Vitter ad demonstrates that the ad is mostly effective. As predicted in H1a and H1b, the ad decreased viewer attitudes toward Vitter. There was a clear, direct effect of ad exposure on Vitter attitudes. Similarly, H2a and H2b predicted that ad exposure would decrease perceptions of Vitters honest trait . As predicted in H2a and H2b, the ad decreased the perception of Vitters honest trait. However, the effects were minimal. These minimal effects could be in part because the perception of Vitters honest trait was so low from before viewing the ad. H3a and H3b made predictions about vote intentions. The ad had a positive direct effect on vote intentions for females, but a minimal effect on males. However, there was an overall decline on intention to vote for Vitter References Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press. Ridout, T. N., & Franz, M. M. (2011). The persuasive power of campaign advertising. Temple University Press.