IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2005.128.html

Contest with Attack and Defence: Does Negative Campaigning Increase or Decrease Voters’ Turnout?

Author

Listed:
  • Raphaël Soubeyran

    (GREQAM Université de la Mediterrannée)

Abstract

We present a general model of two players contest with two types of efforts. Contrary to the classical models of contest, where each player chooses a unique effort, and where the outcome depends on the efforts of all the players, contestants are allowed to reduce the effort of the opponent. Defence increases one’s chance of winning while attack annihilates the defence of the opponent. This model has many applications like political campaigning, wars, competition among lobbies, job promotion competitions, or sport contests. We study the general model of contest with attacks and defence and propose an application to negative political campaigns, where two candidates arbitrate between disparaging their opponent or enhancing their own image. We propose sufficient conditions for the existence and uniqueness of a symmetric Nash equilibrium of the contest game. In the application, we contribute to the empirically debated question dealing with the effect of attack on voters turnout, and show that the conclusion depends on the distribution of voters sensitivity to defence and attack. Furthermore, contrary to the literature, we show that an underdog candidate may be less aggressive than his opponent.

Suggested Citation

  • Raphaël Soubeyran, 2005. "Contest with Attack and Defence: Does Negative Campaigning Increase or Decrease Voters’ Turnout?," Working Papers 2005.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2005.128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2005-128.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Cohen, Chen & Darioshi, Roy & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2024. "Think twice before attacking: Effort, restraint, and sanctions in war conflicts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    3. David Lagziel & Ehud Lehrer & Ohad Raveh, 2026. "Resource windfalls and political sabotage: Evidence from 5.2 million political ads," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 108(2), pages 630-664, March.
    4. Brown, Alasdair & Chowdhury, Subhasish M., 2017. "The hidden perils of affirmative action: Sabotage in handicap contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 273-284.
    5. Subhasish Chowdhury & Oliver Gürtler, 2015. "Sabotage in contests: a survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 135-155, July.
    6. Bernhardt, Dan & Ghosh, Meenakshi, 2020. "Positive and negative campaigning in primary and general elections," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 98-104.
    7. David Lagziel & Ohad Raveh & Yan Zhang, 2025. "Do campaign contributions fuel political sabotage?," Working Papers 2512, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    8. Minchuk, Yizhaq & Raveh, Ohad, 2025. "Can term limits reduce political sabotage? Evidence from negative campaigning in gubernatorial races," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    9. Maria Arbatskaya & Hugo M. Mialon, 2012. "Dynamic Multi‐Activity Contests," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(2), pages 520-538, June.
    10. Zhao, Jun & Dong, Zhiqiang & Li, Weicheng & Zhang, Hanqi, 2025. "Effects of wealth on the intensity of competition: Evidence from a lab experiment," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fem:femwpa:2005.128. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Alberto Prina Cerai to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.