Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:36:41.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisanship and Perceptions of Fairness: Ignoring the Facts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2015

Barbara Allen ,
Eric Lawrence ,
Daniel Stevens  and
John Sullivan
Barbara Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Carleton College, Northfield, MN; email: [email protected]
Eric Lawrence
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.; email: [email protected]
Daniel Stevens
Affiliation:
University of Exeter, Treliever Road, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK; email: [email protected]
John Sullivan
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper employs survey experiments to examine how contextualizing the claims made in negative political advertising affects perceptions of their fairness. This has implications for the components of fairness judgments, e.g., if “truth” is a component of fairness, being informed that a claim is untrue should undermine perceptions of its fairness, as well as for the efficacy of “fact-checking.” Our experiments on a random national telephone sample show some effects of being informed that a claim is untrue but few if it is characterized as taken out of context or as irrelevant. These findings imply that: (a) while evaluations of the truth of claims appear to be a component of fairness, considerations such as whether claims are the “whole story” or “relevant” to the decision at hand do not, and (b) contextualizing of the claims of ads in fact-checks has very little impact on perceptions of their fairness.

Keywords

Survey experimentnegative advertisingfairnessfact-checking
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Spring 2016 , pp. 32 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ansolabehere, S. and Iyengar, S.. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. 1998. Campaign Reform: Insights and Evidence, A Report of the Task Force on Campaign Reform. Princeton: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.Google Scholar
Brooks, D. J. and Geer, J.. 2007. “Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Cappella, J. and Jamieson, K. H.. 1994. “Broadcast Adwatch Effects: A Field Experiment.” Communication Research 21 (3): 342–65.Google Scholar
Freedman, P. and Lawton, L. D.. 2000. “Campaign Advertising, Perceived Fairness, and Voter Turnout.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.Google Scholar
Fridkin, K. and Kenney, P.. 2008. “The Dimensions of Negative Messages.” American Politics Research 36 (5): 694–723.Google Scholar
Fridkin, K. and Kenney, P.. 2011. “Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 307–25.Google Scholar
Geer, J. 2006. In Defence of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Geer, J. 2012. “The News Media and the Rise of Negativity in Presidential Campaigns.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (3): 422–7.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. and Pardoe, I.. 2007. “Average Predictive Comparisons for Models with Nonlinearity, Interactions, and Variance Components.” Sociological Methodology 37 (1): 23–51.Google Scholar
Jamieson, K. H. 2000. Everything You Think You Know About Politics . . . And Why You’re Wrong. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jamieson, K. H. and Hardy, B.. 2012. “What is Civil Engaged Argument and Why Does Aspiring to It Matter?” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (3): 412–5.Google Scholar
Kahn, K. F. and Kenney, P.. 1999. “Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship between Negativity and Participation.” American Political Science Review 93 (4): 877–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisel, L. S. 2012. “The Negative Consequences of Uncivil Political Discourse.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (3): 405–11.Google Scholar
McKinnon, L. and Kaid, L. L.. 1999. “Exposing Negative Campaigning or Enhancing Advertising Effects: An Experimental Study of Adwatch Effects on Voters’ Evaluations of Candidates and their Ads.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 27 (3): 217–36.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, P. and Geiger, S.. 1995. “Does the Watchdog Bite? Newspaper Adwatch Articles and Political Attack Ads.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (4): 771–85.Google Scholar
Pfau, M. and Louden, A.. 1994. “Effectiveness of Adwatch Formats in Deflecting Political Attack Ads.” Communication Research 21 (3): 325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridout, T. and Franz, M.. 2011. The Persuasive Power of Campaign Advertising. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, D., Sullivan, J., Allen, B., and Alger, D.. 2008. “What's Good for the Goose is Bad for the Gander: Negative Political Advertising, Partisanship and Turnout.” Journal of Politics 70 (2): 527–41.Google Scholar
Stevens, D., Allen, B., Sullivan, J., and Lawrence, E.. 2015. “Fair's Fair? Principles, Partisanship, and Perceptions of the Fairness of Campaign Rhetoric.” British Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 195–213.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Allen supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Allen supplementary material(File)
File 54.8 KB