IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/igi/igierp/664.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning

Author

Listed:
  • Vincenzo Galasso
  • Tommaso Nannicini
  • Salvatore Nunnari

Abstract

Negative advertising is frequent in electoral campaigns, despite its ambiguous effectiveness: negativity may reduce voters’ evaluation of the targeted politician but have a backlash effect for the attacker. We study the effect of negative advertising in electoral races with more than two candidates with a large scale field experiment during an electoral campaign for mayor in Italy and a survey experiment in a fictitious mayoral campaign. In our field experiment, we find a strong, positive spillover effect on the third main candidate (neither the target nor the attacker). This effect is confirmed in our survey experiment, which creates a controlled environment with no ideological components nor strategic voting. The negative ad has no impact on the targeted incumbent, has a sizable backlash effect on the attacker, and largely benefits the idle candidate. The attacker is perceived as less cooperative, less likely to lead a successful government, and more ideologically extreme. Keywords: Electoral Campaign, Political Advertisement, Randomized Controlled Trial, Field Experiment, Survey Experiment. JEL Codes: D72, C90, M37.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini & Salvatore Nunnari, 2020. "Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning," Working Papers 664, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    • Handle: RePEc:igi:igierp:664
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.unibocconi.it/igier/igi/wp/2020/664.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Jared Barton & Marco Castillo & Ragan Petrie, 2014. "What Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(574), pages 293-326, February.
    3. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CEPR Discussion Papers 11238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Bhatti, Yosef & Dahlgaard, Jens Olav & Hansen, Jonas Hedegaard & Hansen, Kasper M., 2019. "Is Door-to-Door Canvassing Effective in Europe? Evidence from a Meta-study across Six European Countries," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 279-290, January.
    5. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P., 2000. "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 653-663, September.
    6. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    7. Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Do interactions with candidates increase voter support and participation? Experimental evidence from Italy," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 379-402, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Braconnier, Céline & Dormagen, Jean-Yves & Pons, Vincent, 2017. "Voter Registration Costs and Disenfranchisement: Experimental Evidence from France," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(3), pages 584-604, August.
    10. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Iyengar, Shanto & Simon, Adam & Valentino, Nicholas, 1994. "Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(4), pages 829-838, December.
    11. Conor M. Dowling & Amber Wichowsky, 2015. "Attacks without Consequence? Candidates, Parties, Groups, and the Changing Face of Negative Advertising," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 19-36, January.
    12. Vincent Pons, 2018. "Will a Five-Minute Discussion Change Your Mind? A Countrywide Experiment on Voter Choice in France," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1322-1363, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Amit Gandhi & Daniela Iorio & Carly Urban, 2016. "Negative Advertising and Political Competition," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 433-477.
    15. Nickerson, David W., 2008. "Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 49-57, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Torun Dewan & Macartan Humphreys & Daniel Rubenson, 2014. "The Elements of Political Persuasion: Content, Charisma and Cue," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(574), pages 257-292, February.
    18. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2000. "The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00248, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CEPR Discussion Papers 11238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Kahn, Kim Fridkin & Kenney, Patrick J., 1999. "Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship between Negativity and Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 877-889, December.
    21. Alan Gerber & Donald Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting may be habit forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00251, The Field Experiments Website.
    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. Krzysztof Krakowski & Juan S. Morales & Dani Sandu, 2020. "Violence Against Politicians, Negative Campaigning, and Public Opinion: Evidence from Poland," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 624 JEL Classification: D, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    2. Marinkovic Dal Poggetto Sofía, 2023. "¿Tiene algún efecto la propaganda política en la decisión de los votantes?," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4667, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.

    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. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    2. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CEPR Discussion Papers 11238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. 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.
    4. Vincenzo Galasso & Massimo Morelli & Tommaso Nannicini & Piero Stanig, 2022. "Fighting Populism on Its Own Turf: Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9789, CESifo.
    5. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León‐Ciliotta & Vivian Roza & Martín Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2019. "Urbanization Patterns, Information Diffusion, and Female Voting in Rural Paraguay," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 323-341, April.
    6. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León & Vivian Roza & Martin Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2017. "Urbanization patterns, social interactions and female voting in rural Paraguay," Economics Working Papers 1589, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. 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.
    8. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    9. Pedro Robalo, 2021. "Political Mobilization in the Laboratory: The Role of Norms and Communication," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-40, March.
    10. Bruno Carvalho & Claudia Custodio & Benny Geys & Diogo Mendes & Susana Peralta, 2020. "Information, Perceptions, and Electoral Behaviour of Young Voters: A Randomised Controlled Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2020-14, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Isaac Duerr & Thomas Knight & Lindsey Woodworth, 2019. "Evidence on the Effect of Political Platform Transparency on Partisan Voting," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 331-349, June.
    12. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    13. Grácio, Matilde & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Information, get-out-the-vote messages, and peer influence: Causal effects on political behavior in Mozambique," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    15. Baum, Charles L. & Owens, Mark F., 2023. "Does personal door-to-door campaigning influence voters? Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    16. Bhatt, Rachana & Dechter, Evgenia & Holden, Richard, 2020. "Registration costs and voter turnout," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 91-104.
    17. LeRoux Kelly & Langer Julie & Plotner Samantha, 2023. "Nonprofit Messaging and the 2020 Election: Findings from a Nonpartisan Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 157-183, April.
    18. Griffin, John & Nickerson, David & Wozniak, Abigail, 2012. "Racial differences in inequality aversion: Evidence from real world respondents in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 600-617.
    19. 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.
    20. Enrique García-Viñuela & Ignacio Jurado & Pedro Riera, 2018. "The effect of valence and ideology in campaign conversion: panel evidence from three Spanish general elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 155-179, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    electoral campaign; political advertisement; randomized controlled trial; field experiment; survey experiment. jel codes: d72; c90; m37.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • M37 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Advertising

    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:igi:igierp:664. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.igier.unibocconi.it/ .

    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.