com/members/adspotlight/) to be representative of the way the SBYA provision was applied by campaigns.
In other words, half of the respondents were randomly assigned to see the unknown candidate with SBYA and the other half saw the unknown candidate without SBYA.
To begin our analysis, we simply cross-tabulated whether or not a respondent viewed an ad with or without the SBYA tag line by the four questions asked after each ad.
In this analysis, SBYA has no measurable impact on trust in the candidate sponsor of the ad or trust in political ads in general.
The relationship between SBYA and vote intention is clearer and stronger.
However, the difference between the SBYA conditions is much more noticeable in leading respondents to reduce their likely support of a candidate.
As we designed the study, we anticipated the possibility that respondents could react differently to the SBYA information depending on whether or not they possessed prior information about the candidate and the campaign.
On the question about whether the ad increases confidence that the campaign is truthful and fair, when respondents viewed the Toomey ad, the version of the ad with the SBYA tag, it slightly increased their level of confidence in the campaign (9 percent for the SBYA tag compared to 3.
Just as in Table 1, in Table 3 the relationship between SBYA and vote intention remains clear.
2 percent of those who saw the Kerry ad with the SBYA tag line were more likely to support Kerry.
The SBYA language now used in political advertising for federal races does not deter candidates from running negative ads (Magleby, Monson, and Patterson 2005).
In this article, we focused on the likelihood that campaign ads with the SBYA tag line were more likely to influence vote choice and found that candidate ads containing the SBYA tag line helped respondents to be more willing to support the candidate.