“Fighting Back: Attack and Response in Political Campaigns,” American Political Science Association Meetings (2010); with Marissa Silber Grayson and Paulina S. Rippere.
Appendix
- Table A1. Counterbalancing Order for Each of the Sixteen Research Groups
- Table A2. A Test of Factors Mediating the Effect of Attack Ads on Vote Choice and Candidate Evaluations
- Table A3. A Test of the Effect of Response Ads on Vote Choice and Candidate Evaluations, by Partisanship
- Sixteen Research Packets
Table A1. Counterbalancing Order for Each of the Sixteen Research Groups
Whenever response type “a” or “b” was used in Race 1, it was always followed by response type “c” or “d,” respectively, in Race 2 (thus, “a” was never followed by “b” and vice versa). Likewise, response types “c” and “d” were always followed by “a” or “b,” respectively. While this design prevents us from determining whether the order combinations of response type “a” with “b,” or “c” with “d,” yield results different from all other specific order combinations, this is not something in which we are interested. What is more important for our purposes is the pairing of specific responses with each attack, a matter for which the within-subjects experimental design controls.
Table A2. A Test of Factors Mediating the Effect of Attack Ads on Vote Choice and Candidate Evaluations
1. Shared Partisanship
2. Perceived Negativity of Attack
Table A3. A Test of the
Effect of Response
Ads on Vote Choice and Candidate Evaluations, by Partisanship
1. Counterimaging
2. Denial
3. Counterattack
4. Justification
