@article{14251,
  author = {Matthew Tokeshi and Tali Mendelberg},
  title = {Countering implicit appeals: Which strategies work?},
  abstract = {<p>Some contemporary politicians try to mobilize racial attitudes by conveying implicit racial messages against their opponents{\textemdash}messages in which the racial reference is subtle but recognizable and which attack the opponent for alleged misdeeds. Although targeted politicians have tried a number of different strategies to respond to implicit racial appeals, little is known about the effectiveness of these strategies. Using two survey experiments, we answer the following question: Does calling the appeal {\textquotedblleft}racial{\textquotedblright} work? That is, does it neutralize the negative effects on the attacked candidate? We find mixed evidence that it does. However, offering a credible justification for the attacked behavior works more consistently. We also test whether effects vary by candidate race. The results suggest that Black candidates{\textquoteright} rhetorical strategies are more constrained than identical White candidates{\textquoteright}, but that White Americans are more open to credible arguments and justifications than the previous literature implies.</p>
},
  year = {2015},
  journal = {Political Communication},
  volume = {32},
  number = {4},
  pages = {648{\textendash}672},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  doi = {10.1080/10584609.2014.969463},
}