IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v93y1999i04p891-899_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?

Author

Listed:
  • Wattenberg, Martin P.
  • Brians, Craig Leonard

Abstract

As political campaigns become increasingly adversarial, scholars are giving some much-needed attention to the effect of negative advertising on turnout. In a widely recognized Review article and subsequent book, Ansolabehere and his colleagues (1994, 1995) contend that attack advertising drives potential voters away from the polls. We dispute the generalizability of this claim outside the experimental setting. Using NES survey data as well as aggregate sources, we subject their research to rigorous real-world testing. The survey data directly contradict their findings, yielding no evidence of a turnout disadvantage for those who recollected negative presidential campaign advertising. In attempting to replicate Ansolabehere et al.'s earlier aggregate results we uncover quite substantial discrepancies and inconsistencies in their data set. We conclude that their aggregate study is deeply flawed and that Ansolabehere et al. exaggerated the demobilization dangers posed by attack advertising, at least in voters' own context.

Suggested Citation

  • Wattenberg, Martin P. & Brians, Craig Leonard, 1999. "Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 891-899, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:93:y:1999:i:04:p:891-899_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400219151/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Brett R. Gordon & Wesley R. Hartmann, 2013. "Advertising Effects in Presidential Elections," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 19-35, June.
    2. Raphaël Soubeyran, 2009. "Contest with attack and defense: does negative campaigning increase or decrease voter turnout?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(3), pages 337-353, March.
    3. Chakrabarti, Subhadip, 2005. "A Note on Negative Electoral Advertising," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 7/2005, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    4. Sridhar Moorthy, 2019. "On Marketing Strategy in Electoral Politics," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(3), pages 57-62, December.
    5. Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2015. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 322-353, January.
    6. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2013. "Men Vote in Mars, Women Vote in Venus: A Survey Experiment in the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 9547, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    8. Jae-Jae Spoon, 2012. "How salient is Europe? An analysis of European election manifestos, 1979–2004," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 558-579, December.
    9. Andrey Simonov & Szymon K. Sacher & Jean-Pierre H. Dubé & Shirsho Biswas, 2020. "The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Non-Compliance with Social Distancing During the Covid-19 Pandemic," NBER Working Papers 27237, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Sourav Bhattacharya, 2011. "Campaign Rhetoric and the Hide-&-Seek Game," Working Paper 457, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Nov 2012.
    11. Joshua Clinton & John Lapinski, 2004. "Targeted advertising and voter turnout: An experimental study of the 2000 presidential election," Natural Field Experiments 00226, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Matthew L. Bergbower & Scott D. McClurg & Thomas Holbrook, 2015. "Presidential Campaign Spending and Correct Voting from 2000 to 2008," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1196-1213, November.
    13. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CEPR Discussion Papers 11238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini & Salvatore Nunnari, 2020. "Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning," CESifo Working Paper Series 8055, CESifo.
    15. Jan Brueckner & Kangoh Lee, 2015. "Negative campaigning in a probabilistic voting model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 379-399, September.
    16. Seerat Sohal & Harsandaldeep Kaur, 2019. "Communicating with Voters on YouTube: Content Analysis of the Relationship Between Advertisement Message Characteristics and Viewers’ Responses," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 44(1), pages 17-35, February.
    17. Sjoerd B Stolwijk & Andreas RT Schuck, 2019. "More interest in interest: Does poll coverage help or hurt efforts to make more young voters show up at the ballot box?," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 341-360, September.
    18. Balles, Patrick, 2022. "Political Advertising by Special Interest Groups and Voter Participation: The Effects of Less Restrictive Campaign Finance Rules Following Citizens United," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264075, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Li Hao & Wei Li, 2013. "Misinformation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(1), pages 253-277, February.
    20. Massimiliano Landi & Chun Seng Yip, 2006. "Campaign Tactics and Citizens’ Electoral Decisions," Macroeconomics Working Papers 22462, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    21. Sourav Bhattacharya, 2016. "Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 697-727, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:apsrev:v:93:y:1999:i:04:p:891-899_21. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.