Effects of negative political advertising on the political process

Garramone, Gina M.; Atkin, Charles K.; Pinkleton, Bruce E.; Cole, Richard T.

doi:10.1080/08838159009386744

Cited by 135 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, citizens may react more powerfully to negative campaigns than to more positive campaigns because the former make clear the differences between the two candidates (Carsey 2000) and decrease the uncertainty citizens feel towards candidates (Alvarez 1997). Citizens may also weigh negative information more heavily than positive information (Lau 1982(Lau , 1985Garramone et al 1990), and negative attacks may produce stronger emotional responses among voters (Marcus and MacKuen 1993;Finkel and Geer 1998). In particular, negative advertising is often meant to raise feelings of concern, anxiety, and even fear among citizens about an opposing candidate in the upcoming election.…”

Section: Campaigns Negativity and Political Persuasionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Negative Advertising and the Dynamics of Candidate Support

Banda

Windett

2016

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have spent a great deal of effort examining the effects of negative advertising on citizens' perceptions of candidates. Much of this work has used experimental designs and has produced mixed findings supporting one of two competing theories. First, negative ads may harm candidates who sponsor them because citizens tend to dislike negativity. Second, negativity may drive down citizens' support for the targeted candidate because the attacks give people reasons to reject the target. We argue that the mixed findings produced by prior research may be driven by a disregard for campaign dynamics. We present a critical test of these two theories using data drawn from 80 statewide elections-37 gubernatorial and 43 U.S. Senate contests-from three election years and public opinion polling collected during the last 12 weeks of each campaign. We find that a candidate's support declines as her advertising strategy includes a higher proportion of negative ads relative to her opponent and that this process unfolds slowly over the course of the campaign.

show abstract

Section: Campaigns Negativity and Political Persuasionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Negative Advertising and the Dynamics of Candidate Support

Banda

Windett

2016

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of this research has explored the impact of the tone of advertising (whether it is positive, negative or mixed) on voter turnout (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995;Ansolabehere, Iyengar, & Simon 1999;Djupe & Peterson, 2002;, 2002aKahn & Kenney, 1999;Lau & Pomper, 2004;Martin, 2004;Peterson & Djupe, 2005;Wattenberg & Brians, 1999); advertising's impact on candidate impressions (Garramone, Atkin, Pinkleton, & Cole, 1990;Hitchon & Chang, 1995;Kaid & Boydston, 1987); and the relationship between ad exposure and democratic attitudes such as political interest and efficacy (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995;Freedman, Franz, & Goldstein 2004;Martin, 2004;Schenck-Hamlin & Proctor, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Political Advertising Persuade?

Michael

Ridout

2007

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Well over $1 billion was spent on televised political advertising in the U.S. in 2004. Given the ubiquity of the 30 second spot, one might presume that ads must affect viewers' vote choices. Somewhat surprisingly, though, scholars have yet to make much progress in confirming this claim. In this paper, we leverage a comprehensive dataset that tracks political ads in the nation's top media markets and a survey of presidential and U.S. Senate voters in 2004. We ask whether exposure to presidential and Senate advertising influences voters' evaluations of candidates and the choices that they make at the ballot box. In the end, we find considerable evidence that advertising persuades-and that its impact varies depending on the characteristics of the viewer.

show abstract

“…Voters condemn negative campaigning and claim they are not persuaded by it, though there is evidence to the contrary (Garramore, 1990;Stevens, 1993). Thus we should examine the question more closely, looking for indirect evidence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Voter response to computerized campaigning

Rodman¹,

Williams²

1995

Int J Speech Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A computer system was designed to telephone voters en masse and play a short campaign message in support of a candidate. The calling program used a new algorithm to detect and leave messages on answering machines, or, when a human answered, to observe telephone etiquette. It was tested in the Raleigh City Council election of 1993. Over 30,000 households were called in both a primary and final election. Immediately after the November election about 600 of the called households were polled by telephone (using human interrogators) to measure the effect of the calling campaign. Among persons reached who actually voted, 52% remembered the candidate's name, and 6.4% said the call had affected their vote.

show abstract

Effects of negative political advertising on the political process

Cited by 135 publications

References 14 publications

Negative Advertising and the Dynamics of Candidate Support

Negative Advertising and the Dynamics of Candidate Support

Does Political Advertising Persuade?

Voter response to computerized campaigning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About