Positive vs.

Negative Campaigns Mini-Literature Review

The effectiveness of going positive versus going negative has been a hotly debated
issue since the 1980s. It is a difficult subject to study for a variety of reasons. However, this
paper will review existing research on each strategy; detail significant examples of negative and
positive campaigns elements; evaluate the pros and cons of positivity and negativity; and
examine the ability to sway voters.
One potential reason researchers have not found definite consequences of positive and
negative campaigns, is the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of a negative or
positive campaign (Carraro and Castelli. 2007). One way negative campaigns can be defined is a
wide array of assaults on an opponents position, performance and personality, delivered as
lines in speeches or debates, printed handbills or telephone calls (Elving, 1996). Another study
determines whether or not an ad is negative is based on the authors intent (Lau et al. 1999). The
discrepancies in classifying negative and positive advertisements and campaigns make it difficult
to draw comparable data from different studies.
An additional contributing factor to the inconsistencies in researching negativity and
positivity is the difficulty in measuring effects in a lab setting. This is often due to inaccurate
answers from respondents. "It appears that citizens believe that they are less likely to vote
because of negative campaigning, but nonetheless act in the opposite manner. Negative
campaigns may be a kind of guilty pleasure for Americans. They claim to dislike them, but
inadvertently are drawn to them in much the same way that shoppers find themselves drawn to
the tabloids in the checkout sale" (Martin, 2004).

The most popular form of negative campaigning is the television buy where the audience
sees a few stark images of the opposition and hears a claim that generally deters support (West,
1993). These attacks can be issue-based, ideology-based or person-based, though one has not
been found to be more effective than the other. One of the more recent examples of successful
negative television buys was during the race for the Louisiana Senate seat in 2014. Bill Cassidys
campaign defeated incumbent Mary Landrieu with a simple message that resonated with the
voters in Louisiana: Mary Landrieu sides with Obama 97 percent of the time (Heller, 2014).
This message translated into a wide variety of attack ads in a very messy race. With approval
ratings for President Obama sitting at around 30 percent during the race, these negative ads
gained Cassidy widespread support, and ultimately the Senate seat.
Perhaps some of the best examples of negative campaigning come from the George H. W.
Bush campaign for president in 1988 (Lau et al. 2007). Bush was losing by ten points before the
release of a series of attack ads against Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis, including the
notorious Willie Horton ad. The ad states Dukakis supports weekend passes for incarcerated
criminals. The narrator details how inmate Willie Horton received a weekend pass then explicitly
lists the horrible acts committed by Horton while
temporarily out of prison. Another extremely
successful ad depicted Dukakis riding in a tank
during

routine

campaign

stop

at

manufacturing plant. In an effort to appear as a

more capable military leader, Dukakis donned a helmet and posed in the machinery. He wanted
to look stronger, but ultimately appeared comical and silly. Bushs campaign and political action
committees capitalized on this public relations misstep and he won the presidency by 8 points.

These examples illustrate one of the benefits of going negative. Negative stimuli attract
attention from the public and tend to keep hold. Bob Stern of the Center for Government Studies
believes Voters don't pay much attention to campaign ads, but when they're negative they do.
That's why negative ads are busting out all overthey can cut through the flotsam of an electionyear blitz; they tend to stick with us when less provocative ads fade away; and they often provide
voters with usable information about candidates they know next to nothing about. (May 2006).
This attention often translates into support in the polls. Media attention generally correlates with
public opinion as illustrated by this Washington Post graphic. The correlation shown is 0.96
(Sides, 2015). The type of coverage does not appear to play a large role in the polls. Republican
frontrunner Donald Trump received more negative media coverage than all other candidates
combined between May 17 and August 6 as illustrated in the graphic below (Sides, 2015). He
still polled higher than any other candidate by about 8 points during this time. The phrase there
is no such thing as bad publicity holds true in this scenario.

Another

important

advantage

to

positive campaigns is an increase in campaign

knowledge and campaign interest. Eleven of
the fifteen relevant studies showed increases
in these categories, though they were very
minor increases (Lau et al, 2007).
However, there are unquestionably established cons to going negative. There is an
extremely significant chance of backlash on the attacker (Roese & Sande, 1993). Thirty-three out
of 40 studies have confirmed this trend. The attacker loses support, while the targets support
generally remains unchanged (Lau et al., 2007).
Some researchers suggest negative campaigns undermine American democracy (Lau et al.,
2007). One study of 186 newspaper and magazine article from 2000 through 2005 found that 65
percent of the articles reported that negative campaigning decreases voter turnout. Only 6 percent
reported increases (Brooks, 2006). Another study estimated a 5 percent decrease in turnout,
sparking concern for the integrity of the political system (Ansolabehere et al., 1994). Lau et al.
2007 goes so far as to conclude negative campaigning has the potential to do damage to the
political system itself, as it tends to reduce feelings of political efficacy, trust in government, and
perhaps even satisfaction with government itself.
There are many positive campaigns that have been successful. One of the best examples of a
positive campaign ad is Ronald Reagans famous Morning in America ad. There isn't any
citation, any backup information, so negative or contrast ads often have more information, but
it's unpleasant to watch them, says Dr. Greg Schudfelt of the University Arkansas at Little Rock
So more than any one thing Reagan said about what he did in his four years of office, it

communicated a feeling. This advertisement is still being evoked today. Newt Gingrich ran a
similar ad in 2012 during the Republican primary entitled Rebuilding the America We Love. It
used the same language and imagery to make the viewer feel a sense of patriotism and optimism.
While the campaigns themselves may not have been completely positive, these ads were very
effective.
Positive campaigns help to humanize candidates who may not be as relatable to voters.
Positivity also avoids the alienation of the coveted independent demographic (Danielson,
2014). They are also no less effective than negative campaigns (Lau et al., 2007). Positive
campaigns tend to practice more ethical behavior. Negative ads can occasionally incite
controversy. The Willie Horton ad was criticized for being too offensive, racist and explicit.
There are very few regulations concerning lying and exaggeration in campaign media. The
Federal Communications Commission has failed to take action against slanderous and racist
content in the name of free speech (Jackson, 2004). While positive campaigns may not represent
the pinnacle of honesty, they do not accuse their opponents of having a hand in murder or rape.
Some studies have found positive stimuli is not as memorable as negative stimuli. Lau et
al., 2007 found negative ads are consistently more memorable than positive ads. The difference,
however, is extremely small.
There is a substainail amount of evidence that outlines the dangers of running a negative
campaign. The blowback from the attacks can often harm the attacker more than the target. The
political efficacy and trust in government may also be a casualty of negative campaigns.
However, there is also little evidence to suggest going positive is more beneficial. There is no
clear evidence keeping a clean, positive campaign is effective in winning the support of the

voting population as a whole. Further research into this topic is necessary to fully understand the
effects of negative and positive campaigns on candidates and the publics view of politics.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, and Nicholas Valentino. 1994. Does Attack
Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? American Political Science Review 88 (12): 82938.
Carraro, L., & Castelli, L. (2010). The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is
the Source Really Blamed? Political Psychology, 31(4), 617-645. Retrieved September 24, 2015, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20779586
Danielsen, S. (2014, September 19). Political ads: Negative vs. positive. Retrieved September 28, 2015.
Elving, R. (1996). Accentuate the Negative: Contemporary Congressional Campaigns. PS: Political
Science & Politics, 440-446.
Heller, K. (2014, November 1). Bill Cassidy and the 97 percent solution.Washington Post. Retrieved
September 26, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/11/01/billcassidy-and-the-97-percent-solution/
Jackson, B. (2004, June 3). False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! Or Maybe Not. Retrieved September
25, 2015
Lau, R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. (2007). The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A MetaAnalytic Reassessment. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176-1209. Retrieved September 28, 2015, from
http://www.jstor.org.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/stable/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x
Martin, P. S. (2004). Inside the black box of negative campaign effects: Three reasons why negative
campaigns mobilize. Political Psychology, 25, 545-562.
May, Patrick. 2006. Ads Reach New Lows. San Jose Mercury News, June 2.
"Michael Dukakis in tank" by http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/dukakis.jpg.
Obama Job Approval in Key States | RealClearPolitics. (n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2015.
Roese, N. J. and Sande, G. N. (1993), Backlash Effects in Attack Politics. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23: 632653. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01106.x
Sides, J. (2015, August 28). Why does Trump remain atop the polls? You can still blame the
media. Washington Post. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/08/28/why-does-trump-remain-atop-thepolls-you-can-still-blame-the-media/
West, Darrell M. 1993. Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952-1992. Washington:
CQ Press