IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v10y2022i4p247-260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Partisanship Matters: A Panel Study on the Democratic Outcomes of Perceived Dirty Campaigning

Author

Listed:
  • Franz Reiter

    (Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Austria)

  • Jörg Matthes

    (Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Uncivil campaigning and deceitful campaign techniques are increasingly relevant phenomena in politics. However, it remains unclear how they share an underlying component and how partisanship can influence their associations with democratic outcomes. We introduce the concept of dirty campaigning, which is situated at the intersection of research on negative campaigning and political scandals. Dirty campaigning involves violations of social norms and liberal‐democratic values between elite political actors in terms of style and practices, such as uncivil campaigning and deceitful campaign techniques. In a two‐wave panel study (N = 634) during the 2021 German federal election campaign, we investigate the associations of perceived dirty campaigning by the least and most favorite party with distrust in politicians, trust in democracy, attitudes toward dirty campaigning regulation, as well as perceived harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy. We find that perceived dirty campaigning by the least favorite party increases perceptions of harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy over time. In contrast, perceived dirty campaigning by the most favorite party decreases perceptions of harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy as well as attitudes toward dirty campaigning regulation over time. Perceptions of harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy increase distrust in politicians over time and vice versa. Our findings suggest that the outcomes of dirty campaigning can depend on partisanship and can have important implications for the quality of democracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Franz Reiter & Jörg Matthes, 2022. "How Partisanship Matters: A Panel Study on the Democratic Outcomes of Perceived Dirty Campaigning," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 247-260.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:247-260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/5672
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim L. Fridkin & Patrick Kenney, 2011. "Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 307-325, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alessandro Nai & Diego Garzia & Loes Aaldering & Frederico Ferreira da Silva & Katjana Gattermann, 2022. "For a Research Agenda on Negative Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 243-246.
    2. Murat Tuncer, 2023. "Political Dirty Tricks and Trickery of Justice and Development Party in Turkiye 2023 Election," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(7), pages 1947-1953, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juha Koljonen & Emily Öhman & Pertti Ahonen & Mikko Mattila, 2022. "Strategic sentiments and emotions in post-Second World War party manifestos in Finland," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1529-1554, November.
    2. Alessandro Nai & Mike Medeiros & Michaela Maier & Jürgen Maier, 2022. "Euroscepticism and the use of negative, uncivil and emotional campaigns in the 2019 European Parliament election: A winning combination," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 21-42, March.
    3. Ivar Kolstad & Arne Wiig, 2016. "How do voters respond to information on self-serving elite behaviour? Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in Tanzania," CMI Working Papers 9, CMI (Chr. Michelsen Institute), Bergen, Norway.
    4. Alessandro Nai & Ferran Martínez i Coma, 2019. "Losing in the Polls, Time Pressure, and the Decision to Go Negative in Referendum Campaigns," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 278-296.
    5. Lingling Zhang & Doug J. Chung, 2020. "The Air War vs. the Ground Game: An Analysis of Multichannel Marketing in U.S. Presidential Elections," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 872-892, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:247-260. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.