Negative Campaigning

Class 12. Kristof Jacobs

But first

• Campaign paper
• Exam

2
Outline

Introduction
Part I: delineating the borders (descriptives)
Part II: Theories on negative campaigning
Part III: Empirics
• Do people learn from negative campaigns?
• Does it influence their vote choice?
• Does it affect turnout?
• Does it increase general political cynicism?
• Going beyond America
Summary

3
Introduction

Conventional wisdom
• In general, journalists, politicians and political consultants believe that negative
ads are ever more common ánd successful…
• But mainly based on anecdotal evidence (Goldwater 1964, Dukakis 1988, Kerry
2004)
• In the Netherlands: ‘U draait en u liegt’ & ‘Nu doet u het weer!’

• What about the scientific evidence?

4
Part I: Delineating the borders - definition and occurrence

5
Introduction

Definition: what is a negative ad?

An ad where one talks about one’s opponent and the deficient nature of his/her
programs, accomplishments, qualifications, character etc.

• Negative ads present reasons not to vote for an opponent

• A negative campaign in turn, is a campaign that primarily uses negative ads
• The opposites of a negative campaign are a positive campaign and a
comparative campaign

Purely negative Comparative Purely positive

… … …

6
Two examples
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcRA2AZsR2Q
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Nj70XqOxpt
U

7
Introduction

Definition: what is a negative ad?

Purely negative Comparative with Comparative ad Positive, Purely positive
a negative opponents
element mentioned

Perry 2012 Obama 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzONeK1OwQ

8
A clarification: It’s American?

• Americanization hypothesis: spread of the features of American

campaigning such as negative ads
• But are negative ads per se American?

9
 Other countries do it as well…

All the other parties are globalist and He has a lot to say
all are to blame!!

Vote against, vote SP

10
A clarification: It’s American to do it in the center

• Fringe anti-establishment parties always did it…

• Arguably the first populist party was the American People’s party (1891)

• What is typically American is not the mere fact of going negative but rather
that mainstream political parties do it

11
‘The dirtiest campaign ever’

Is the number of negative campaign ads increasing?

In America

• Real negative campaigning versus perception

• Media and scholarly attention

In Europe:

1. Rise of populist parties

2. Populist zeitgeist
3. Versus Salonfähig

12
‘The dirtiest campaign ever’

• Negative campaigning in the Netherlands

13
‘The dirtiest campaign ever’

• Negative campaigning in the Netherlands

Strange, isn’t it…

• There is enough negative campaigning going on to merit academic research
• But it is not clear that negative campaiging is ever more prominent

14
Part II: Theories about impact of negative campaigning

15
The impact of negative campaigning

Theory 1: Negative impact (people do not vote for their candidate)

• Causal mechanism 1: Negativity = unique

Most people most of the time live in a positive world
Against a positive backdrop negativity is more likely to be noticed,
stands out

• Causal mechanism 2: People avoid costs

Negative campaigns often highlight costs attached to electing opponent
People tend to avoid cost rather than achieve gains
Negative ads attract attention more easily than positive ones

16
The impact of negative campaigning

Theory 1: Negative impact

• Causal mechanism 3: info cost = zero; so more impact on voters

* People look for info to decide whom to vote for
* But are unwilling to look hard
* When negative ads are everywhere, information cost are near zero
* You don’t have to look hard for it

17
The impact of negative campaigning

Theory 2: No impact

Causal mechanism:
• People hardly pay any attention to political messages and even tend to
avoid them
• Even if they watch them, the source is not credible

Theory 3: Positive impact

Causal mechanismn:
• The ads convey knowledge
• They discriminate between candidates and make it easier to pick a
candidate to vote for
• They trigger emotional responses, which may trigger interest in the election
and turnout

18
Part III: The juicy bit - empirical findings

19
The impact of negative campaigning

20
The impact of negative campaigning

Examining the impact of negative campaigning

1. Impact on learning (information processing)

2. Impact on who to vote for (vote intention)
3. The impact on voter turnout (vote intention)
4. Impact on the political system (systemic impact)

21
The impact of negative campaigning

1. Impact on learning

Not that many studies, but majority of them finds:

• Negativity is more important for challengers

• People are more likely to correctly identify campaign themes

22
The impact of negative campaigning

2. The impact on who to vote for

Possible effects are:

• May represent new information shaping first impressions of (new)
candidates
• Can activate partisan attachment (Obama-Perry)
• Can present counterfactual information and lead to vote-switching

23
The impact of negative campaigning

2. The impact on who to vote for

Until 1999 conclusion was:

‘there is simply no evidence that negative
political advertisements are any more effective
than positive ads’ (Lau, et al. 1999)

However, their new meta-analysis found:

‘the picture is mixed, with the bulk of the evidence pointing to modest
tendency for negative campaigns to undermine the positive affect for the
candidates they target’ (Lau, et al., 2007)

However, the same effect also holds for the source of the negative ad
(boomerang effect)!!

On average both candidates (source and target) suffer!!

24
The impact of negative campaigning

2. The impact on who to vote for

These mixed results may stem from different content and/or different effects

Not all negative ads are the same !

• Differences in content
* issue or candidate?
* irrelevant or relevant (influence on daily lives)?
• Differences in target
* Pure attack ad or comparative element?
• Differences in emotional content
* Fear, anger, hatred,…

All three dimensions affect the impact of the ad

25
The impact of negative campaigning

2. The impact on who to vote for

These mixed results may stem from different content and/or different effects

Not all negative ads are the same…

• Differences in content
* issue or candidate: Issue ads are somewhat more effective
than focusing on candidates characteristics
* irrelevant or relevant: Only relevant ads matter (Libya)
• Differences in target
* Pure attack ad or comparative element: Comparative ads
work best as they are less malicious
• Differences in emotional content
* Fear, anger, hatred,…: little research on it, but fear seems to
work best

26
An exercise

27
 An exercise

•Content: Candidate – issue? / /Relevant or irrelevant

•Target: Attack or comparative?
•Emotion: Hatred, Fear, Anger?

• Is this a promising negative ad?

28
 An application

• Content: Candidate – issue / /relevant or irrelevant

• Target: attack or comparative?
• Emotion: hatred, fear, anger?

In sum: Promising ad

29
The impact of negative campaigning

2. The impact on who to vote for

Two types of effect:
• Intended consequences: hurt the other
• Unintended consequences: a ‘boomerang’ or ‘backlash effect’
* Nasty, lies, misrepresentation, attacks on family of candidate
• This also explains why some negative ads work better than others:
‘malicious’ ads have a bigger backlash effect

Not everybody is affected in the same way: Some people dislike negativity
more than others (but difficult to take into account in a study)

30
The impact of negative campaigning

Content Criticism = fair

Talking one way and voting another 80.7%
His/her businness practices 71.0%
Taking money from interest groups 70.7%
…
Past extramarital affairs 27.8%
Past personal struggles with drugs or alcohol 25.9%
Behaviour of family members 7.7%

31
The impact of negative campaigning

Backlash effect?

32
The impact of negative campaigning

3. The impact on voter turnout

Explanation:
• When negative campaign ads are pervasive, people may become
fed up with the mudslinging
• This feeling may spill over from assessments of the candidates to
views about the whole political system
• Which in turn leads to fewer people voting

33
The impact of negative campaigning

3. The impact on voter turnout

Classic study:
Ansolabehere & Iyengar
(1996): the demobilization hypothesis
Multi-method study
Experiments and aggregate analysis i.e. state level election turnout in a
regression analysis)
Estimate: 6 million abstained + 1 million only voted for president, not
Senate in 1992
Shock effect through academic community…

34
The impact of negative campaigning

3. The impact on voter turnout

Lots of replication research

Results are very mixed

Kahn & Kenney (1999,2004) say it depends on tone and content

• Mudslinging about irrelevant topics is bad
• Negative ads presented in civil manner on relevant topics
increases turnout

But: the more negative ads there are, the less positive it is – in the end the
effect even becomes negative (lower turnout)

Meta-review:

35
Meta-review

36
Meta-review

37
The impact of negative campaigning

4. The impact on views of the political system

• Impact on political efficacy

The feeling that one can influence politics
• Impact on political trust
Does it make politicans less trustworthy?
• Impact on political interest
Does it turn people off politics?

38
The impact of negative campaigning

4. The impact on views of the political system

• Impact on political efficacy

Little research, most of it finds no effect
• Impact on political trust
Only 11 studies so far, modest lower trust
• Impact on political interest
Almost no research; mixed findings

But virtually no attention to causal mechanisms…

Why would negative campaigning in one election have any impact?

Indeed trust, efficacy and interest are stable and longitudinal attitudes

39
Going beyond America

The Netherlands:
• ‘U draait en u liegt’ (2006) (fickle like the wind; memorized attack line)
• ‘Nou doet u het weer’ (2012) (again a memorized attack line, borrowed from
Reagan 1980
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w&feature=player_embedded

40
Going beyond America

1. Political system:

- ‘shadow of the future’ (cf. American primary):

- Government stability

- Less efficient in a multiparty system

2. Financing:
- In most European countries it is always clear who made the ad (not anonymous)

3. Public broadcasting is more important

- Far more difficult to air negative ads on public broadcasting

41
When to use negative campaigning?

When would you expect a candidate to go negative?

• In general (USA):
- Not in government
- Radical ideology
- Bad polling

=>Little to lose, a lot to win

• If you can’t do it based on your own reputation,

• …you try to damage the other one’s reputation

42
When to use negative campaigning?

• When do European parties go negative?

- Elmelund-Praestekaer (2011):
- Incumbents are more positive than challengers
- Parties that have little chance of becoming government parties more negative
- But lagging behind in polls does not matter (versus USA)
- And neither does ideology (versus USA)

- Elmelund-Praestekaer (2012):
- Parties tend to go negative on issues that they have no issue ownership of
- They stay positive on ‘home ground’

Clearly different from the USA

• Costs attached to going negative are higher
• Hence less instances where it is rational to go negative

43

Preparing the paper… (exercise)
•Incumbents are more positive
than challengers
•Parties that have little chance
of becoming government
parties more negative
•But lagging behind in polls
does not matter (versus USA)
•And neither does ideology
(versus USA)

Let’s apply this:

• Obama: 2012

• Marine LePen

• CDA: Provincial elections 2015

44
Obama 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOJkzUrnx0&feature=player_embedded

Better watch out…

45
6. Conclusion

Summary:
• In the USA, negative campaigning is omnipresent
• It has (some) effects – it can work, but it is a risky strategy
• In Europe things are more complicated: it is riskier + gains are less clear

Future research:
• Does the medium play a role (e.g. internet versus television). Most
research deals exclusively with television ads…
• Does the timing play a role (in the beginning of the campaign or rather
later?)
• Does it matter who starts? Are counter-attacker less subject to
boomerang effects?
• Does it matter how often an ad is aired?
• In what way does the electoral context matter?

Next: Cybercampaigning

46