Candidates Affect Viewer Reactions to Ads in Debates

Seeing an ad after seeing a political candidate you don't like can affect your opinion of the product in the ad. Amy Kraft reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A lot of people watch political debates on TV. Which means great opportunities for advertisers. But an ad for an island getaway or exotic cuisine will only sound appealing if the viewer agrees with the candidate they are watching. That’s according to a study in the Journal of Consumer Research. [Alison Jing Xu and Robert S. Wyer, Jr., "The Role of Bolstering and Counterarguing Mind-Sets in Persuasion"]

Two-hundred-sixty-five people were exposed to forms of persuasive communication and then asked to rate advertisements for vacation spots, cars or food.

In one experiment, participants either viewed a debate between two political candidates or watched one politician speak about economics. Study subjects with a preference for one candidate reported negative reactions while watching the speaker they opposed. And political independents developed negative feelings while they watched the debate.

And the study found that such negative feelings decreased a subject’s opinion of a subsequent ad.

The research provides insight into how our cognitive responses to an ad can be influenced by the context in which a viewer experienced the ad. So even though an advertisement may look good, it’s like a gemstone: the setting counts.

—Amy Kraft

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe