Emotions & Microtargeting
The German research study conducted by Lennart J. Krotzek is the first to examine how different aspects of personality can be used in political advertising. Here are the key takeaways:
1. Better Feelings, But Not More Votes
The study found that when political ads match a voter's personality, it makes them feel more positively about a candidate. However, it doesn't make them more likely to vote for the candidate. More research may be needed to see if repeated exposure to these ads might have a stronger impact.
2. Cognition and Trust Don't Explain the Effect
The study also tested other things like thinking about the ad, emotions, or trust in the candidate helped explain why personality-targeted ads work. But these factors didn't seem to play much of a role. This could be because of how these factors were measured. Future studies could use more advanced methods, like brain scans, to understand better how these ads affect voters subconsciously.
3. Best Results When Both Thinking and Feeling are Engaged
The research supports the concept that ads are most effective when they both make people think and make them feel something. In this study, ads worked best when they engaged both voters' logic and emotions at the same time,
4. Trust Doesn't Change with One Ad
Trust in a candidate wasn't significantly influenced by whether the ad matched the voter's personality. This may suggest that a single ad isn't enough to build trust in a candidate. Rather, voters may need more information over time. However, once trust is built, it does positively affect how voters feel about the candidate.
In conclusion, personalized ads can improve how voters feel about a candidate, but they don't always make them more likely to vote for that candidate. For political campaigns, this means that emotional appeal is important, but it should be combined with solid messages and engagement to actually change voting behavior.
Great Blog Aislinn! As a person who experience micro targeting I understand that a candidate can campaign to all generations and try to relate to them in a personal but it can't guarantee a vote in their favor. For example, Kamala's campaign was phenomenal and targeted all age groups. A lot of policy's targeted toward women rights however a lot of different women of other demographics didn't for vote for her even though her future policies would have benefited them.
ReplyDeleteThis study sheds light on the complexity of political advertising and its impact on voter behavior. It’s interesting that while personality-targeted ads can improve a candidate’s image, they don’t necessarily translate into more votes. This highlights a key takeaway for political campaigns: creating a positive emotional response is not enough; candidates must also build trust and provide substantive messaging over time to truly influence voter decisions. The idea that ads work best when they engage both emotion and logic underscores the importance of a well-rounded approach to advertising, suggesting that campaigns should go beyond surface-level appeals to foster a deeper, lasting connection with voters.
ReplyDeleteHi! I think this is a great post and it explains what happened in the election. I thought Kamala's campaign and strategy was brilliant. She tried to appeal to all age groups, backgrounds, races, social status and genders. Despite all her campaigning, rallies, ads, interviews, podcast, it didn't convince enough people. I witnessed a lot of Tik-Tok videos of people stating that they were voting against Kamala even though her policies would benefit them, such as women rights, department of education or immigration. I think people already had their minds made up no matter what they've seen.
ReplyDelete