IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-05114-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What makes online political ads unacceptable? Interrogating public attitudes to inform regulatory responses

Author

Listed:
  • Junyan Zhu

    (University of Toronto)

  • Katharine Dommett

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Tom Stafford

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Online political advertising is often portrayed negatively, yet there is limited evidence regarding what exactly the public deems unacceptable. This paper provides new insights into public attitudes based on an online survey conducted in 2022, in which 1881 respondents evaluated political ads placed on Facebook during the 2019 UK General Election. We find that citizens do not inherently view political ads as unacceptable, and that perceptions of acceptability are influenced by partisan and demographic factors. We also find that ads deemed compliant with existing regulatory protocols for non-political advertising are considered more acceptable, suggesting a case for extending the existing regulatory regime to political ads. Delving deeper into our survey data, we explore the drivers behind these perceptions of acceptability and find that concerns about the content and tone of ads play a significant role. These findings provide valuable insights for those seeking to develop codes of conduct to govern practices in this space. Overall, our study offers a nuanced understanding of public attitudes toward online political advertising and identifies possible pathways for regulatory reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Junyan Zhu & Katharine Dommett & Tom Stafford, 2025. "What makes online political ads unacceptable? Interrogating public attitudes to inform regulatory responses," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05114-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05114-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-05114-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-05114-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melissa‐Ellen Dowling, 2024. "Mitigating microtargeting: Political microtargeting law in Australia and New Zealand," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 987-999, July.
    2. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    3. Katharina Baum & Stefan Meissner & Hanna Krasnova, 2021. "Partisan self-interest is an important driver for people’s support for the regulation of targeted political advertising," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Anastasia Kozyreva & Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Ralph Hertwig & Stephan Lewandowsky & Stefan M. Herzog, 2021. "Public attitudes towards algorithmic personalization and use of personal data online: evidence from Germany, Great Britain, and the United States," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0215835 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    4. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Mochon, Daniel & Schwartz, Janet, 2024. "The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    6. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    7. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    8. Daniel J. Blake & Stanislav Markus & Julio Martinez‐Suarez, 2024. "Populist Syndrome and Nonmarket Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 525-560, March.
    9. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    10. Dickinson, David L., 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias: An Examination of Politics and Religion," IZA Discussion Papers 13241, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    12. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    13. Goonj Mohan, 2024. "Regulating a Social Media Platform in the Data Economy," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2024/477, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    14. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    15. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    16. Linda M. Fogg & Lawrence C. Hamilton & Erin S. Bell, 2020. "Views of the Highway: Infrastructure Reality, Perceptions, and Politics," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    17. Esterling, Kevin M. & Fung, Archon & Lee, Taeku, 2013. "Ideology, Deliberation and Persuasion within Small Groups: A Randomized Field Experiment on Fiscal Policy," Working Paper Series rwp13-036, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    19. Vrontis, Demetris & Siachou, Evangelia & Sakka, Georgia & Chatterjee, Sheshadri & Chaudhuri, Ranjan & Ghosh, Arka, 2022. "Societal effects of social media in organizations: Reflective points deriving from a systematic literature review and a bibliometric meta-analysis," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 151-162.
    20. Tao, Ran & Li, Jianing & Shen, Liwei & Yang, Sijia, 2023. "Hope over fear: The interplay between threat information and hope appeal corrections in debunking early COVID-19 misinformation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    21. Eric Plutzer & A. Lee Hannah, 2018. "Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools: investigating STEM education’s deficit model," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 305-317, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05114-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.