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
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