Wednesday, August 1, 2012

So... How do they do it?


I have talked in previous blogs about the effect negative ads have on the electorate: they encourage participation.  I also explored the differences between positive ads and negative ones, both in terms of effect and magnitude of effect.  To recap: while positive ads can also be used to mobilize the electorate, negative ads are more effective in doing so.  That leads to an obvious question, how do negative ads encourage voter participation?  In my research I found several answers, below is an excerpt from that research:

In his study in 2004, Martin concluded that “Exposure to negative advertisement should encourage participation by heightening perceptions of public problems, making an election appear of greater importance, and thereby stimulating republican duty” (Martin 2004).  He went on to identify three mechanisms that are used by negative ads to motivate the electorate to participate: negative ads increase the voter’s want to fulfill their republican duty, they create the perception of a close election, and they increase the voter’s perception that the other candidate is a threat (Summers 2012).

Creating the perception of a close election is somewhat of a misleading argument.  Well, not misleading, but rather self-reinforcing.  Studies have shown that negative advertising (and campaign advertising in general) increases the closer the election becomes.  This seems rather obvious; if the election is a landslide with one candidate miles ahead of the rest, why spend enormous amounts of money on advertising?  So, a close election produces more negative ads which in turn creates the perception of a close election.  For you science majors, this is essentially a temporal causality loop.

Regardless of the science behind the argument, I think it is clear that negative ads stimulate the voter by increasing their awareness of a close election and thus portray the notion that the decision between the candidates is a critical one.  I look forward to your comments regarding that conclusion; in my next post I’ll be discussing the informational content of campaign advertising.  Some questions to simmer on: Are campaign ads more character attack driven than information driven?  Is it a bad thing if they are?


References

Martin, Paul S.  2004.  “Inside the Black Box of Negative Campaign Effects: Three Reasons Why Negative Campaigns Mobilize,” Political Psychology vol. 25, no. 4: 545-562.

Summers, Matthew.  2012.  “Campaign Strategy and Election Outcomes.”

Summers, Matthew.  2012.  “Literature Review.”

No comments:

Post a Comment