Chapter 15 Quiz
Instructions: Select the best answer for each multiple-choice question. For short-answer questions, write 2–4 sentences.
Multiple Choice
1. Lazarsfeld's "minimal effects" hypothesis, based on the Erie County panel study, primarily found that:
a) Campaign advertising has no measurable effect on voter turnout b) Most voters converted from one party to another during the campaign c) Campaigns primarily reinforced existing preferences rather than converting voters d) Television advertising was less effective than direct mail for persuasion
Answer: c
2. The concept of "activation" in campaign effects research refers to:
a) The process of converting opponents to your side through compelling arguments b) Mobilizing weak partisans and existing supporters to vote and engage more actively c) The agenda-setting function of priming voters to consider new issues d) The technical process of activating a campaign's voter file for canvassing
Answer: b
3. Kalla and Broockman's 2018 meta-analysis of 49 field experiments found that the average persuasion effect of campaign contact was approximately:
a) 5 percentage points per contact b) 2 percentage points per contact c) 0.1 percentage points per contact d) No measurable effect across all studies
Answer: c
4. The research on advertising decay suggests that political advertising effects have a half-life of roughly:
a) One day b) One to two weeks c) One month d) The entire election cycle
Answer: b
5. Deep canvassing, as studied by Broockman and Kalla, differs from conventional canvassing primarily in:
a) Using digital tools and social media to follow up after door contacts b) Engaging voters in extended, personal conversations that encourage perspective-taking c) Targeting only registered party members rather than the broader electorate d) Employing professional paid staff rather than volunteers
Answer: b
6. The "issue ownership" hypothesis holds that:
a) Campaigns that spend more money own the airwaves and therefore win b) Parties are perceived as more competent on different issue domains and benefit when those issues are salient c) Incumbents own the advantages of office while challengers own the outsider narrative d) Local party organizations own the ground game while national parties own media strategy
Answer: b
7. The Gelman-King analysis of incumbency advantage found that the advantage is partly attributable to:
a) Voters' irrational preference for familiar names b) Federal funding that incumbents direct to their districts c) The "scare-off" effect where incumbents deter quality challengers from entering d) Media bias toward covering incumbent campaigns more favorably
Answer: c
8. Huber and Arceneaux (2007) identified the causal effect of presidential advertising by using:
a) Survey experiments that randomly exposed respondents to ads b) The fact that broadcast market boundaries don't align with state lines c) Natural variation in ad spending across election cycles d) Comparison of treated and untreated precincts within the same media market
Answer: b
9. Which statement best describes the relationship between prediction and explanation in campaign analytics?
a) Good prediction models automatically explain the causes of outcomes b) Prediction and explanation require different modeling approaches and should not be confused c) Explanation models are more useful for campaigns because they identify causal levers d) Modern machine learning methods solve the prediction-explanation problem simultaneously
Answer: b
10. In the context of campaign effects, when are campaign activities most likely to produce their largest impacts?
a) In safe states where one party dominates and needs to run up the score b) In presidential elections where information saturation is highest c) In close races, low-information environments, and when novel issues emerge mid-campaign d) In the first week after Labor Day before most voters start paying attention
Answer: c
Short Answer
11. What is the key methodological difference between the observational approach used in Lazarsfeld's Erie County study and the randomized field experiments used by Green and Gerber? Why does this difference matter for drawing causal conclusions about campaign effects?
Sample answer: Lazarsfeld's observational approach tracked naturally occurring variation in campaign exposure, which means that voters who received more campaign attention differed from those who received less in systematic ways (more engaged, more persuadable, living in more competitive areas). This confounding makes it hard to separate the effect of campaigns from selection effects. Green and Gerber's randomized experiments assigned voters to receive or not receive GOTV contacts randomly, ensuring that the two groups were identical on average on all pre-existing characteristics. This random assignment allows credible causal inference about the effect of the intervention, because any differences in outcomes can be attributed to the treatment rather than pre-existing differences between groups.
12. Explain why campaign advertising effects are larger for challengers than for incumbents in high-visibility races, and what strategic implications follow.
Sample answer: Incumbents are already well-known to voters in high-visibility races; advertising mainly provides a reminder function with short half-life. Challengers, particularly in their first statewide campaign, genuinely need advertising to build name recognition and establish candidate attributes — this is an informational effect that can produce lasting mental representations. The strategic implication is that challengers should invest early to build a positive image before the incumbent's campaign can define them, while incumbents should hold fire later and concentrate spending close to Election Day when effects are more durable.
13. What does it mean to say a campaign "agenda-sets" and how is this different from direct persuasion? Give an example from the Garza-Whitfield race.
Sample answer: Agenda-setting means shifting which issues voters consider most important when evaluating candidates, without necessarily changing the voters' underlying positions on those issues or their assessments of which candidate is better on any given issue. It is different from persuasion because it changes the salience weighting of pre-existing attitudes rather than the attitudes themselves. In the Garza-Whitfield race, if Garza's advertising consistently raises healthcare and Whitfield's advertising consistently raises border security, each campaign is trying to agenda-set — to make election day be a referendum on its preferred terrain. A voter who considers both healthcare and immigration important may vote differently depending on which issue she is most focused on at decision time, even though her positions on both issues haven't changed.