IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/woraff/v180y2017i3p72-96.html

WHOSE ISSUE IS IT ANYWAY… AND DOES IT REALLY MATTER? Issue Ownership and Negative Campaigning

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen C. Craig
  • Paulina S. Cossette

Abstract

Although academic research has yielded mixed results, candidates and consultants are rational people whose experience persuades them that “going negative” can be an effective campaign strategy under the right circumstances. And they are almost certainly right, even if their evidence is more anecdotal than systematic. This article considers whether the impact of negative ads is moderated by perceptions of issue ownership, a factor that is known to affect the candidate preferences of some voters. Focusing on the attitudes of those who identify with the party of the targeted candidate, we examine the changes in support and favorability induced by four policy‐based attacks against a hypothetical congressional incumbent seeking reelection. Results from an Internet survey experiment suggest that attacks are somewhat more effective among target co‐partisans who do not believe that their party is more competent to handle the issue in question, especially when that issue is salient to the individual. A pesar de que la investigación académica haya dado resultados mixtos, los candidatos y los consultores son personas racionales cuya experiencia los convence que la ‘publicidad negativa’ puede ser una estrategia de campaña efectiva bajo las circunstancias adecuadas. Y en general tienen mucha razón, inclusive si su evidencia es más anecdótica que sistemática. Este artículo considera si el impacto de la publicidad negativa es moderado por percepciones de atribución de los temas, un factor que tiene la reputación de afectar las preferencias de candidato de algunos electores. Enfocándose en las actitudes de los que se identifican con el partido del candidato al que se dirige la publicidad, examinamos los cambios en apoyo y favorabilidad que inducen cuatro ataques basados en la política contra un candidato titular hipotético que busca la reelección. Los resultados de una encuesta experimental por internet sugieren que los ataques son un poco más efectivos en las personas del mismo partido que no piensan que su partido es más competente para resolver el problema en cuestión, especialmente cuando ese problema es importante para el individuo. 尽管学术研究产生了许多意见不一的结果, 但候选人和咨询顾问在面对竞选时却十分理性, 他们的经历告诉他们在正确的情况下实行”负面竞选”可以是一项有效的竞选策略。他们几乎是完全正确的, 即便其给出的依据比较零散, 不成体系。本文考虑了负面政治广告的影响力是否会受到议题所有权概念的调和, 后者是一种能影响部分选民对候选人偏爱程度的因素。本文聚焦于一部分人的态度(这部分人将自身视为目标候选人党派的成员), 并对一项理论性的国会现任成员再次选举进行四次基于策略的抨击, 进而检验抨击对选民支持度和偏爱度产生的变化。一项网络调查实验结果显示, 抨击在某种程度上对目标党派人士更为有效, 后者不相信其所属党派能更好地处理被质疑的议题, 当议题对个人而言十分重要时更是如此。

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen C. Craig & Paulina S. Cossette, 2017. "WHOSE ISSUE IS IT ANYWAY… AND DOES IT REALLY MATTER? Issue Ownership and Negative Campaigning," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 180(3), pages 72-96, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:180:y:2017:i:3:p:72-96
    DOI: 10.1177/0043820017750209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0043820017750209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0043820017750209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Sigelman & Emmett H. Buell, 2004. "Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 650-661, October.
    2. Corwin D. Smidt, 2017. "Polarization and the Decline of the American Floating Voter," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 365-381, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Noah Kaplan & David K. Park & Travis N. Ridout, 2006. "Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 724-736, July.
    5. Therriault, Andrew, 2015. "Whose Issue Is It Anyway? A New Look at the Meaning and Measurement of Issue Ownership," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 929-938, October.
    6. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    7. Richard Williams, 2012. "Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 12(2), pages 308-331, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Denter, Philipp, 2020. "Campaign contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    2. James N. Druckman & Donald P. Green & Shanto Iyengar, 2023. "Does Affective Polarization Contribute to Democratic Backsliding in America?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 137-163, July.
    3. Ivanusch, Christoph & Zehnter, Lisa & Burst, Tobias, 2023. "Communicating in an eventful campaign: A case study of party press releases during the German federal election campaign 2021," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 86.
    4. Federico Vegetti, 2019. "The Political Nature of Ideological Polarization: The Case of Hungary," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 681(1), pages 78-96, January.
    5. Yamaguchi, Yohei, 2022. "Issue selection, media competition, and polarization of salience," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 197-225.
    6. Schwarzbözl, Tobias & Fatke, Matthias & Hutter, Swen, 2020. "How party‒issue linkages vary between election manifestos and media debates," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(4), pages 795-818.
    7. Mazen Hassan & Sarah Mansour & Stefan Voigt & May Gadallah, 2022. "When Syria was in Egypt’s land: Egyptians cooperate with Syrians, but less with each other," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 337-362, June.
    8. Sakaue, Katsuki, 2018. "Informal fee charge and school choice under a free primary education policy: Panel data evidence from rural Uganda," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 112-127.
    9. Birgitte Grøgaard & Asmund Rygh & Gabriel R. G. Benito, 2020. "Correction to: Bringing corporate governance into internalization theory: State ownership and foreign entry strategies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(8), pages 1351-1352, October.
    10. Dudek Hanna & Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska Agnieszka, 2024. "Housing Deprivation Among Polish Households: Prevalence and Associated Factors," Real Estate Management and Valuation, Sciendo, vol. 32(2), pages 58-69.
    11. Tanisa Tawichsri & Thiti Tosborvorn & Suparit Suwanik & Boontida Sa-ngimnet & Chonnakan Rittinon, 2022. "Misunderstood Differences: Perception, Media, and Out-Group Animosity in Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 194, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, revised Nov 2025.
    12. Craig Gundersen & David R. Just & Fei Men, 2017. "Mothers' Within-Marriage Economic Prospects and Later Food Security: Does Marital Outcome Matter?," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 682-702, November.
    13. K. P. Kannan, 2022. "India’s Elusive Quest for Inclusive Development: An Employment Perspective," The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Springer;The Indian Society of Labour Economics (ISLE), vol. 65(3), pages 579-623, September.
    14. Luca Henkel & Philipp Sprengholz & Lars Korn & Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm, 2023. "The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 231-239, February.
    15. Brache, Jose & Felzensztein, Christian, 2019. "Exporting firm’s engagement with trade associations: Insights from Chile," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 25-35.
    16. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. KIZILCA, F. Kemal, 2013. "Booze and women: Gendering labor market outcomes of secular consumption patterns in a Muslim society," MPRA Paper 60134, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Nov 2014.
    18. Sgroi, Daniel & Yeo, Jonathan & Zhuo, Shi, 2021. "Ingroup Bias with Multiple Identities: The Case of Religion and Attitudes Towards Government Size," IZA Discussion Papers 14714, IZA Network @ LISER.
    19. Allain, Marie-Laure & Chambolle, Claire & Rey, Patrick & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Vertical integration as a source of hold-up: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    20. Hiramatsu, Tomoko & Marshall, Maria I., 2017. "The effect of Small Business Administration (SBA) Disaster Loans on Revenues of Small Businesses in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252713, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:wly:woraff:v:180:y:2017:i:3:p:72-96. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.