This article takes advantage of a naturally occurring experiment to examine how congressional campaign advertising responds to dramatic events. Integrating the literatures on issue ownership and gender stereotypes, we ask how campaign rhetoric and substance changed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, paying particular attention to how those responses were mediated by party and gender expectations. Using data from the Wisconsin Advertising Project (WiscAds) of all ad-airings (not merely ads created) in the top 75 to 100 media markets in 2000 and 2002, we find that campaigns stepped up issues relevant to 9/11 consistent with party- and gender-based issue ownership. Republican men gave more attention to the military than any other group and more attention to foreign affairs than Democratic men or women. However, most noteworthy was the dramatic increase in the symbolic use of the flag for all candidates.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. ( 1994). Riding the wave and claiming issue ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 335-357.
2.
Benoit, W.L. ( 2003). The emergence of discursive conventions in presidential advertising. Advertising & Society Review, 4(3). doi:10.1353/asr.2003.0013
3.
Benoit, W.L., & Airne, D. ( 2005). Issue ownership for non-presidential television spots . Communication Quarterly, 53, 493-504.
4.
Benze, J.G., & Declercq. ( 1985). Content of television political spot ads for female candidates . Journalism Quarterly, 62, 278-283.
5.
Brooks, D. ( 2002, November 18). It’s the terror, stupid. Newsweek, 140, 46.
6.
Brown, C. ( 1994). Judgements about the capabilities of city councilors and support for female representation on city council. Social Science Journal, 31, 355-373.
7.
Chourey, S. ( 2002, November 20). Patriotism rides high in selecting holiday gifts. The Hill (Capitol Hill Publishing Corp), p. 29.
8.
Cook, C.E., Jr. ( 2002). On the homefront: Politics as usual? Washington Quarterly, 25, 231-242.
9.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
10.
Dabelko, K.L., & Herrnson, P. ( 1997). Women’s and men’s campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 121-135.
11.
Damore, D.F. ( 2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns . Political Research Quarterly, 57, 391-398.
12.
Der Derian, J. (n.d.). 9.11: Before, after, and in between. Retrieved from http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/der_derian.htm
13.
Dewar, H. ( 2002, July 5). War on terror colors the battle for Congress: Rivals make use of ‘nonpartisan’ issue. Washington Post, p. A01.
14.
Doherty, D. ( 2008). Presidential rhetoric, candidate evaluations, and party identification: can parties ‘own’ values. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 419-433.
15.
Dolan, K. ( 2005). Do women candidates play to gender stereotypes? Do men candidates play to women? Candidate sex and issues priorities on campaign websites. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 31-45.
16.
Druckman, J.N., Kifer, M.J., & Parkin, M. ( 2009). Campaign communications in US congressional elections . American Political Science Review, 103, 343-366.
17.
Dulio, D., & Trumbore, P. ( 2009). Running on Iraq or running from Iraq? Conditional issue ownership in the 2006 midterm elections. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 230-243.
18.
Falk, E., & Kenski, K. ( 2006). Issue saliency and gender stereotypes: Support for women as presidents in times of war and terrorism. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 1-18.
19.
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. ( 2002). Lessons learned: Campaign advertising in the 2000 elections . Political Communication, 19, 5-28.
20.
Gordon, A., Shafie, D.M., & Crigler, A.N. ( 2003). Is negative advertising effective for female candidates? An experiment in voters’ uses of gender stereotypes. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 35-53.
21.
Hayes, D. ( 2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science , 49, 908-923.
22.
Herrnson, P., Lay, J.C., & Stokes, A.K. ( 2003). Women running ‘as women’: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. Journal of Politics, 65, 244-255.
23.
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119-147.
24.
Jacobson, G.C. ( 2003). Terror, terrain, and turnout: Explaining the 2002 midterm elections. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 1-22.
25.
Jerit, J. ( 2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior, 30, 1-24.
26.
Johnston, A., & Kaid, L.L. ( 2002). Image ads and issue ads in US presidential advertising: Using videostyle to explore stylistic differences in televised political ads from 1952-2000. Journal of Communication, 52, 281-300.
27.
Kahn, K.F. ( 1993). Gender differences in campaign messages: The political advertisements of men and women candidates for US senate. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 481-502.
28.
Kaplan, N., Park, D.K., & Ridout, T.N. ( 2006). Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 724-736.
29.
Larson, S.G. ( 2001). ‘Running as Women’? A comparison of female and male Pennsylvania assembly candidates’ campaign brochures. Women and Politics, 22, 107-122.
30.
Lawless, J.L. ( 2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly , 57, 476-490.
31.
McDermott, M. ( 1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 895-918.
32.
Niven, D., & Zilber, J. ( 2001a). Do women and men in congress cultivate different images? Evidence from congressional web sites. Political Communication , 18, 395-405.
33.
Niven, D., & Zilber, J. ( 2001b). How does she have time for kids and congress? Views on gender and media coverage from house offices. Women and Politics, 23(1-2), 147-165.
34.
Perrin, A., & Smolek, S. ( 2009). Who trusts? Race, gender, and the September 11 rally effect among young adults. Social Science Research, 38, 134-135.
35.
Petrocik, J.R. ( 1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
Prior, M. ( 2001). Weighted content analysis of political advertisements . Political Communication, 18, 335-345.
38.
Richardson, G.W.J. ( 2002). Visual storytelling and the competition for political meaning in political advertising and news in campaign 2000. American Communication Journal, 5(3).
39.
Rosenwasser, S.M., Rogers, R.R., Fling, S., Silvers-Pickens, K., & Butemeyer, J. ( 1987). Attitudes toward women and men in politics: Perceived male and female candidate competencies and participant characteristics. Political Psychology, 8, 191-200.
40.
Sanbonmatsu, K. ( 2003). Political knowledge and gender stereotypes. American Politics Research, 31, 575-594.
41.
Sapiro, V. ( 1981-1982). If US senator Baker were a woman: An experimental study of candidate images. Political Psychology, 3, 61-83.
42.
Sapiro, V., Walsh, K.C., Strach, P., & Hennings, V. ( 2009). Gender, context, and television advertising: A comprehensive analysis of 2000 and 2002 house races. Political Research Quarterly, 0.
43.
Schneider, M.C. ( 2006). Gender bending: Strategies in candidate websites. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
44.
Sides, J. ( 2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 407-436.
45.
Spigel, L. ( 2004). Entertainment wars: Television culture after 9/11. American Quarterly, 56, 235-270.
46.
Stokes, D.E. ( 1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368-377.
47.
Witt, L., Paget, K.M., & Matthews, G. ( 1994). Running as a woman: Gender and power in American politics . New York, NY: Free Press.
