Negative Campaigning

What is Negative Campaigning?

Oftentimes, scholars consider a political message negative—and potentially damaging to the political process by extension—if it contains any form of challenge or candidate attack. In reality, candidates employ a mix of message strategies during political elections, and perceptions of campaign negativity commonly are a matter of individual perspectives. An advertisement may seem negative to some people, for example, when a candidate simply is challenging an assertion or questioning an opponent regarding an issue position. Such give and take, however, is a normal part of political campaigning and communicates potentially useful information to voters. Research evidence also indicates that citizens are more likely to regard an advertisement as truthful and fair if it supports a political candidate they favor, and more likely to regard an advertisement as attacking and unfair if it denigrates a candidate they favor.

Why Do Candidates Use Negative Campaigning?

Despite some experts' concerns regarding the harmful effects of negative campaigning on citizens' political participation, empirical research and candidates' experiences indicate that negative campaign tactics can be tremendously effective. Social scientists have documented a consistent tendency for people to weight negative information more heavily than comparable positive information in a variety of decision-making contexts. The preponderance of this research indicates that negative information is more memorable than positive information and has a disproportionate influence on individuals' behaviors. In addition, people express greater confidence in their evaluations of others, and these evaluations are more resistant to change when they are based on negative information rather than on positive information.

In political decision making, candidates' negative campaign tactics and voters' negative evaluations have potentially serious consequences for politicians. Citizens have rated candidates as being less qualified, less honest, less serious, less sincere, and less successful after exposure to negative advertising. In addition, the behavioral link between negative information and voting behavior is potentially stronger than the link between positive information and voting behavior. Research results indicate, for example, that citizens who disapprove of the president's job performance vote in larger numbers that citizens who approve of the president's job performance.

Are Campaigns More Negative Today and Does This Discourage Participation?

Despite the common claims of journalists and political commentators to the contrary, presidential campaigns [Page 489]have not grown more negative in recent years. Research evidence indicates that, when considered as a whole, presidential campaigns are no more likely to contain candidate attacks in current campaigns than they were in past campaigns. Ultimately, political experts are mistaken when they claim that modern campaigns are more negative than previous campaigns.

In terms of political participation, it is true that citizens dislike negative campaign tactics and especially negative political advertising. Empirical research consistently indicates that citizens consider negative political advertising untrustworthy, unethical, deceptive, and of little informational benefit. It is interesting, however, that voters seem to have relatively clear perceptions of what is fair or unfair to include in political advertising. Research results indicate that citizens consider topics such as a candidate's family life and medical history unfair to attack in political advertising, for example, while a candidate's issue stands and criminal activities are fair for a candidate to attack.

...