![]() ![]() The effectiveness of such persuasive attempts has been tested, among others, in a recent field experiment via Twitter. Not surprisingly, political campaigns try to leverage this effect by maximizing a candidate’s visibility and presence in both online and offline channels. This mere exposure effect occurs across species and cultures, and it even occurs for stimuli that are presented subliminally (for reviews and meta-analyses, see ). We therefore aimed at complementing previous survey methodology by an experimental approach to determine whether and how mere exposure to media reports influences political elections.Ī large body of psychological research has established that the more often people encounter a particular stimulus, the more positively they come to evaluate it. Determining whether there is indeed a causal influence of media presence requires experimental methods, however. Correlational data from panel surveys suggest that this mechanism may indeed affect voting by showing that media presence predicts election outcomes. Mere exposure likely derives from increased processing fluency that is primed by repeatedly experiencing an event or object. This hypothesis builds on classic observations of the mere exposure effect, a subtle but robust change in the affective evaluation of stimuli that are encountered repeatedly. Media coverage, however, may even affect those media consumers that pay only fleeting attention to the content of the reports and cast their vote based on heuristic decision-making. Impartial media coverage fosters informed voting decisions by allowing politically engaged voters to evaluate a candidate based on relatively objective information. is funded by a Heisenberg grant of the DFG (PF 853/10-1).Ĭompeting interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.ĭemocratic elections require open and accessible media. ![]() This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.ĭata Availability: OSF project repository: (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UE7F) Pre-registration Experiment 1: Pre-registration Experiment 2: Pre-registration Experiment 3: Pre-registration Experiment 4: įunding: The publication was supported by the Open Access Fund of Universität Trier and University of Würzburg and by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Received: OctoAccepted: JPublished: August 1, 2023Ĭopyright: © 2023 Pfister et al. ![]() PLoS ONE 18(8):Įditor: Guy Hochman, Reichman University, ISRAEL ![]() Similarly, an odds of 5/8 mean that for every Rs 100 you bet you will get Rs 62.5 (a total of Rs 162.5).Citation: Pfister R, Schwarz KA, Holzmann P, Reis M, Yogeeswaran K, Kunde W (2023) Headlines win elections: Mere exposure to fictitious news media alters voting behavior. How to interpret these numbers: Odds of 4/5 means that for every Rs 100 you bet, you will get Rs 80 (for a total payoff of Rs 180). On Novermber 4, at 9.50 am IST, the scenario is totally reverse in the favour of Donald Trump. On October 30, the betting market odds were favouring Joe Biden as on every Rs 100 bet one could get Rs 50-55 while on Donald Trump one could get Rs 150-165. However, in the betting market, odds have flipped in favour of Republican President Donald Trump over Democratic candidate Joe Biden, according to data from five aggregators. As of 9.30 am IST, Biden had 205 electoral votes as compared to Trump’s 112, according to The New York Times.Ī candidate needs at least 270 votes to win. Democratic Party candidate and former vice president Joe Biden is leading the electoral vote tally over Republican candidate and incumbent President Donald Trump. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |