1 / 11

American Government

American Government. Negative Campaigning. Negative Campaigning. Why might attack ads be harmful? Increasing voter disgust and alienation toward Candidates Political process itself Turning large segments of the public away from voting Low voter turnout = poorly functioning democracy.

lyn
Download Presentation

American Government

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. American Government Negative Campaigning

  2. Negative Campaigning • Why might attack ads be harmful? • Increasing voter disgust and alienation toward • Candidates • Political process itself • Turning large segments of the public away from voting • Low voter turnout = poorly functioning democracy

  3. Negative Campaigning • Could attack ads have a positive effect on voter turnout? • Perceptual factors: negative ads more likely to be noticed and processed • Motivational factors: people more motivated to avoid costs than to achieve gains

  4. The Evidence—Lau and Pomper (2001) • Study of 189 Senate campaigns across 6 different election years (1988-1998) • Analysis of statements in news coverage of Senate campaigns • Statements classified as positive or negative: • Negative = talking about opponent • Positive = talking about self

  5. Findings—Lau and Pomper • Negative campaign ads increased voter turnout • Every 1% increase in negative campaigning increased turnout by .04% • Increase in turnout occurs up to a point (around 59% negative ads), then decreases • Individual level: strong partisans and independents affected differently.

  6. Negative Campaigning Increases Turnout, Up to a Point

  7. Negative Campaigning Affects Independents and Strong Partisans Differently

  8. Does Negative Campaigning Help Candidates Get Elected? • If so, who benefits more, incumbents or challengers? • Prospect theory (exercise)…

  9. Different ways of “framing” the solution • Program A, where 200 of the 600 people will be saved. • Program B, where there is 33% chance that all 600 people will be saved, and 66% chance that nobody will be saved. • Most people choose Program A • Program C,  where 400 people will die. • Program D, where  there is a 33% chance that nobody will die, and 66% chance that all 600 people will die. • Most people choose Program D • What’s the catch?

  10. Prospect Theory (in a nutshell) • When faced with two options… • A: known good • B: uncertain • People tend to pick… known good • When faced with… • C: known bad • D: uncertain • People tend to pick…uncertain • How does this relate to political campaigns? • Incumbent=known, Challenger=uncertain

  11. Back to Lau and Pomper • Does Negative Campaigning Help Candidates Get Elected? Yes and no…. • Challengers can increase performance at the polls by 1% by increasing attack ads by 6% • Incumbents actually decrease their performance at the polls by 1% by increasing attack ads by 6%

More Related