One of the first criticisms of negative attack advertising
in political campaigns was that the notion that a negative attack ad would
discourage the electorate from participating in the election. The essential idea was that after seeing
negative ads the voter would become turned off to the election process and thus
not vote. In 1998 and 1999 a group of
political scientists went out to test that very theory.
As part of my literature review I explored their studies,
here is an excerpt from that review:
One of the criticisms of negative campaign ads is that they
discourage the electorate from voting and in some cases, discourage voters from
participating in any kind of politics.
This critique was explored in the late 1990’s by a group of political
scientists who eventually concluded, “Exposure
to negative advertising creates an ‘avoidance’ set among viewers, which leaves
them disengaged from the candidates and the political process,” (Houston and
Roskos-Ewoldsen 1998; Houston, Doan, and Roskos-Ewoldsen 1999 cited in Ansolabehere,
SIyengar and Simon, 1999). That finding
was further reinforced by the Ansolabehere et.al. study that found “the experimental,
survey, and aggregate data converge on the same conclusion: Negative
advertising demobilizes voters,” (Ansolabehere, SIyengar and Simon, 1999).
Based on my initial
research, it would appear that negative ads do indeed demobilize voters, and
would thus cost a candidate votes in an upcoming election. If this is the case why would politicians,
who spend millions of dollars on campaign advertising, promote and disseminate
these negative ads among their voter base?
Perhaps there is much more to this story than what the initial research shows.
In my next post, we’ll
be looking at more current research on negative advertising to see if it is
consistent with the studies from the late 90’s.
References
Ansolabehere,
Stephen D., Shanto Iyengar and Adam Simon.
1999. “Replicating Experiments
Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout,”
The American Political Science Review
vol. 93, no. 4: 901-909.
Houston,
D. A., and D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen. 1998. "Cancellation and Focus Model of Choice
and Preferences for Political Candidates," Basic and Applied Social Psychology vol. 20: 305- 12.
Houston,
D. A., K. A. Doan, and D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen.
1999. "Negative Political Advertising
and Choice Conflict," Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied vol. 5, no. 1: 3-16.
Summers, Matthew. 2012. "Literature Review"
Great job reviewing and explaining the situation with negative advertising here! Instead of just analyzing how negative ads contribute to a campaign, you may want to take a look at what positive ads contribute and then compare the two. There must be a reason that negative ads are more popular in these campaigns. Why is that? You've got a good start, just make sure you don't limit your focus too much! Good luck!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I have already begun to examine the differences in effect between positive and negative advertising. I plan on posting the results of my research by the weekend. I will however give you a hint as to the results: There is a definitive reason negative advertising is used so heavily in campaigns. If anyone wants to try and guess what that reason is I welcome your responses.
ReplyDelete