1

Negative Advertisements and Voter Turnout

Kennedy Anderson

Political Inquiry

Professor Hagedorn

November 17, 2021

University of Colorado Colorado Springs

 2
Introduction

When presidential campaign season arrives every four years, it is easy to feel
overwhelmed by the many negative advertisements shown in the media. Candidates have used
negative advertisements to further themselves in the race for decades. Not only are these
negative ads all over television, but they are now being shown on social media platforms like
Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat. During the 2020 presidential election, I saw many negative
advertisements on these platforms through my own social media accounts. Seeing negative ads
always made me wonder why candidates would talk about their opponents' negative aspects
rather than their own positive aspects and how they will impact the country as president. With
further examination, I inferred that there must be reasons for going negative rather than staying
positive. For example, it may cause people to be more engaged and feel more inclined to vote in
the campaign. This has been a burning question in the political science world – how do negative
ads affect voter turnout?
Finding out how the amount of negative advertisements in a presidential campaign affects
voter turnout is the driving purpose of this paper. There is a great amount of discussion and
research surrounding the topic, and the literature review will address the three aspects involved.
The first portion will review the previous research done on negative advertisements and its
factors. The second will examine voter turnout and what affects it. The last part will review
previous research done on how negative advertisements and voter turnout are related. My
research design will include data from the past four presidential elections, specifically
presidential campaign commercial data and voter turnout percentage data.

Literature Review

Negative Advertisements
Negative advertisements are common in many political campaigns, not just presidential
ones. The characteristics of these ads and the effects they have on many different factors have
been studied by many researchers. Some studies have looked at timing, source, and content of
negative advertisements. These all play a role in defining how they affect those who watch the
ads and why this tactic is used.
The source behind information being displayed always plays a big role. Kaid and
Boydston (2009) discussed research on how negative advertisements from a certain source
affects the targeted candidate. Through an experimental study, these authors found that when an
independent source is behind the negative ads, a more damaging image of the targeted candidate
is created compared to when the source of the ad is the competing candidate (Kaid and Boydston
2009). This includes partisans of the targeted politician, not just members of the opposite party.
This reveals that the source of the negative advertisement plays a major role in how it affects the
individual and their feelings toward the targeted candidate.
Another factor to consider is who is watching these ads and how the age of these people
makes a difference. Wang, Gabay, and Shah (2012) looked at the impact of negative ads on
adolescents. This was a unique study because there is little research done on the influence of
political advertising on people of this age. The results of their study revealed that negative
advertisements caused a decrease in political consumption, while having no effect on
adolescents' political participation (Wang, Gabay, and Shah 2012). The study also showed that
when the ads are negative, adolescents become more informed on personal traits of candidates
 3
rather than the positions they take on different policies (Wang, Gabay, and Shah 2012). It is
worth noting that adolescents became disengaged when they were exposed to negative ads, and
less political information was consumed. This guides my research for the hypothesis of this
paper, because negative ads may cause disengagement in other age groups as well, further
relating to political participation. Other age groups may also consume less political information
from negative ads. If negative ads talk more about personality than policy, why has it always
been a major tactic in political advertising?
The answer may be that the negative nature of the ad catches people’s attention, because
it is in human nature to be drawn to scandals, drama, and conflict. We want to know the details
of the “hot topic” everyone is talking about. Marks, Manning, and Ajzen (2012) studied this
psychological aspect of how negative ads affect people, and the effectiveness of these ill-natured
ads. They note that generally, people tend to be more interested in negative stimuli rather than in
positive stimuli (Marks, Manning, and Ajzen 2012). Negative stimuli gets the pot stirring and it
causes buzz within people. For example, an ad talking about a candidate having an affair is
something that more people will talk about than an ad about a candidate wanting to lower taxes.
Scandals are more interesting and engaging than taxes. These authors also discuss the role the
strength of the ad plays. The results revealed that overall, positive ads with a strong message and
supportive evidence make more of an impact on attitudes toward the specific candidate and were
more effective than negative messages (Marks, Manning, and Ajzen 2012). Although, negative
ads with strong messages and negative ads with weak messages had the same amount of impact
on attitudes toward the specific candidate (Marks, Manning, and Ajzen 2012). It can be inferred
that negative ads can be effective in this way because individuals may not pay attention to the
content of the ad.
These three pieces of literature all study different aspects of negative ads and how
individuals are affected by them. Each of these sources will help guide my research by
contributing information regarding the effect the source of the ad has on attitudes, how
adolescents are affected and how that compares to other age groups, and how the strength and
negative nature of the message plays a role.

Voter Turnout
Political scientists have analyzed voter turnout for decades. It is an indicator for many
political science topics and research questions. Factors like age, race and ethnicity, income, and
education all contribute to how scientists find trends in who voted and who did not, and
explanations for both. It is important to review past research on voter turnout for this paper in
order to understand past turnout trends and what influences it.
There are numerous factors that influence why voters decide to go out and vote, and who
they decide to vote for. Adams and Merrill (2003) studied what influences people to vote for a
certain candidate, what causes some people to refrain from voting altogether, and the strategies
candidates use in elections. They specifically look at how the strategies of candidates in a
two-candidate election affect the turnout rates. Through modification of the “standard Downsian
model”, the researchers' results showed that people will refrain from voting if neither candidate
is “sufficiently attractive” (Adams and Merrill 2003). This refers to physical appearance and
personality characteristics. Latinos may choose not to vote if neither candidate is Latino or has a
Hispanic background. It is important to note that having a relation to a candidate through similar
race, ethnicity, or background plays a key role in voter turnout. The researchers also found that
voters will choose not to vote if the “candidates are insufficiently differentiated” (Adams and
 4
Merrill 2003). If the candidates do not stand apart from each other on multiple aspects, such as
policies and personality traits, there may be lower voter turnout in that election.
Voter turnout in the United States has fluctuated through the years. Some elections have
had adequate voter turnout while others saw declines in turnout rates. McDonald and Popkin
(2001) analyze why voter turnout decreased after the national election in 1972. They found that
“calculations by the Bureau of the Census” of voter turnout decrease included an inaccurate
number of the voting age population and argued that people not eligible to vote were included in
that population (McDonald and Popkin 2001). They provided more accurate calculations of voter
turnout rates and gathered results from those. The overall explanation they suggested was that
the “institutional structure” in America’s political system may be to blame (McDonald and
Popkin 2001). In this system the people have a lot of responsibility when it comes to voting. The
government does not do the work for them, and citizens must find information themselves on
who to vote for and how to vote. These things are advertised and encouraged throughout
communities and nationwide during elections, but there is little guidance for people that do not
know much about politics or do not feel obligated to vote.
One of the factors that is frequently mentioned when discussing voter turnout is
education. In past elections, it has been common for citizens with an education to have higher
turnout rates than those with little to no education. Tenn (2007) studies the reasoning for this. He
finds that people with any level of education in general are more likely to vote due to the
environment a school system fosters (Tenn 2007). People with higher education, such as
postsecondary education, do not tend to have higher voter turnout rates according to Tenn. He
found in his studies that “an additional year of schooling” has little impact on voter turnout (Tenn
2007). These results contrast most other studies on voter turnout and education, making it
important to note that his study only looked at the impact an additional year of schooling had on
voter turnout.
The results from these studies will help guide this paper in a few ways. First, we can
better understand what may cause people to refrain from voting. We can also recognize that the
American system of voting may be to blame for declines in voter turnout in past elections.
Lastly, it is important to note that people with an education are more likely to vote.

Negative Ads and Voter Turnout

Many political scientists have researched the relationship between negative ads and voter
turnout, the same topic this paper explores. Therefore, there is abundant research that exists
regarding the relationship between the two and this final portion of the literature review will
examine some of that research. Reviewing what has already been done on this topic is vital to
developing my own research regarding the relationship.
A common question that has guided the research surrounding negative ads and voter
turnout is if these ill-natured ads increase or decrease voter turnout. Goldstein and Freedmen
(2002) studied this particular effect by analyzing data from the 1996 presidential election. They
note that while previous research shows negative campaign ads cause voters to shy away from
voting, their approach to the topic reveals opposite results (Goldstein and Freedmen 2002). They
found a new, alternative way to measure exposure to ads. The Campaign Media Analysis Group
(CMAG) was the foundation of their breakthrough, because this new group had the ability to
“track all political advertising activity” (Goldstein and Freedmen 2002). Previously, tracking this
activity was difficult. By integrating data from the CMAG and the 1996 National Election Study,
the authors found that exposure to negative ads “stimulates voter turnout” (Goldstein and
 5
Freedmen 2002). People become more engaged in campaigns that are attacking their opponents,
and become worried about the outcome of the election after learning the negative aspects of one
or both candidates (Goldstein and Freedmen 2002). This further leads to them voting in the
election out of fear that the “bad” opponent might win.
The previous research that Goldstein and Freedman (2002) mention in their article could
be referring to a popular piece of research done by Ansolabehere and his colleagues in 1994.
Their research is still cited today by other political scientists studying the relationship between
negative ads and voter turnout. The authors conducted multiple studies that analyzed whether or
not negative ads demobilized voter turnout. Through their experimental design, they found that
people are five percent less likely to vote after watching negative ads (Ansolabehere et. al 1994).
Another overall result of their studies included that a general distaste towards “the electoral
process” develops after voters watch negative advertisements (Ansolabehere et. al 1994).
Although this contradicts Goldstein and Freedmen’s (2002) research, it is important to consider
both results for this paper, in order to understand how my own research fits in with theirs.
As mentioned in the first portion of the literature review, there are many factors that
affect negative advertisements. One of these factors is when these negative advertisements are
being shown, and how that affects those exposed to them. Krupnikov (2011) studies this factor
by looking at the “timing of exposure to negativity”. She conducted two tests, with one that
gathered data from the presidential campaign in 2004 and the other getting data from elections
spanning from 1976 to 2000 (Krupnikov 2011). Her results were similar for both tests, revealing
that two key elements of negative ads affect a citizens' decision not to vote. The first being that
the exposure to the negative ad occurs after the person watching the ad has determined which
candidate they want to vote for, and the second element is if that negative ad is about that
selected candidate (Krupnikov 2011). These elements explain that the timing of negative
advertisements is important. It can be concluded that this is a strong study given that both tests
revealed the same results.
Each of these sources will guide the research for this paper by contributing results
previously found, and how those findings may relate to my study. Understanding how previous
studies have tracked ads, tested demobilization of turnout, and explained how timing of negative
ads plays a role is important for my own research development and data collection.

Theory and Hypothesis

Through integration of the previous literature on this topic and my own previous
knowledge, I can develop a theory that explains the relationship between negative
advertisements and voter turnout. As humans, it is in our nature to be drawn to scandals, drama,
and conflict, as shown by Marks, Manning, and Ajzen (2012) in their study focusing on the
psychological aspect of the topic. The demeaning nature of the ads causes people to be more
interested and engaged in the campaign. After learning the negative aspects of each candidate,
citizens become worried about the outcome of the election, a point emphasized by Goldstein and
Freedman (2002). These two main factors lead to an overall increased motivation to vote. This
has led me to hypothesize that as the number of negative presidential campaign ads increases, so
does voter turnout.

HYPOTHESIS: As the number of negative presidential campaign ads increases, voter

turnout increases.
 6

Research Design

For my research design, I created a cluster bar graph and a scatter plot to demonstrate the
relationship I found between the number of negative ads and voter turnout for the past four
presidential elections. I gathered quantitative and qualitative data for these graphs through two
sources: The Living Room Candidate and the United States Census Bureau. The first source
holds qualitative data for my first variable, which is as follows:

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: Amount of negative presidential campaign ads.

It is important to note that it is nearly impossible to obtain records of every negative

advertisement that was shown in the media during an election. However, The Living Room
Candidate has records of all the presidential campaign commercials that were shown during each
election from 1952 to 2020. I can compare this specific area of negative ads to the dependent
variable of my research:

DEPENDENT VARIABLE: Voter turnout.

This variable is easier to measure because there is quantitative data available for the
percentages of voter turnout for each election through the United States Census Bureau database.

Discussion and Analysis

To begin my research design, I gathered data for my independent variable. I watched the
Democratic and Republican presidential campaign commercials that were shown during the past
four presidential elections. For each election, I added up the amount of negative commercials and
divided that by the total number of commercials shown. These results are shown as “percentage
of negative ads” in the two graphs. I then compared these percentages to my dependent variable.
I gathered data for my dependent variable by looking at table 4a in the United States
Census Bureau database. This table provides a wide variety of data from each election, but for
the purpose of this research paper, I used the data that showed the percent voted total.
I created two graphs, a cluster bar graph and a scatter plot. These graphs display the
information differently, making it helpful to visualize the results in two separate ways.
The cluster bar graph is useful to
depict the results because there
are three components included:
presidential election year,
percentage of negative ads, and
voter turnout percentage total.
This design shows the two
variables side by side, making it
easier to compare and contrast
them. When analyzing the
 7
graph, I found no consistent
relationship between the two
variables. In 2020, voter
turnout was the highest, but the
the percentage of negative ads was lower than it was in the two elections before it. The
presidential election in 2012 had the highest percentage of negative ads at 73.5 percent, but the
second to lowest voter turnout
percentage, at 56.5 percent. For
the scatter plot graph, the
dependent variable is on the
x-axis and the independent
variable is on the y-axis. This
design is helpful for showing
patterns among two variables.
The data set for this research
does not cause a pattern to
show in this scatter plot.
Therefore, it can be interpreted
that there is no pattern among
the variables in the graph.

Conclusion

These results have led me to accept the null hypothesis, and reject my hypothesis stating
that as the number of presidential campaign ads increases, so does voter turnout. I found no
correlation between these two variables after analyzing and interpreting the graphs. For the past
four presidential elections, there was no relationship between the amount of negative campaign
ads and voter turnout. Although there was no relationship found, this study may be helpful for
further research of this topic because it shows that negative presidential campaign ads do not
have an effect on voter turnout, and it does not mobilize or immobilize voter turnout. Many
studies, including Goldstein and Freedmen’s in 2002, found contradicting results. The results of
my study may be able to challenge their findings.
For further research, it would be helpful to gather the data of the amount of negative
presidential campaign ads from a larger database, one that might include a wider variety of types
of ads. This study only looked at negative presidential campaign commercials, leaving millions
of ads that may have been advertised on social media platforms, behind. A second way this
research could be altered is by looking at how negative presidential campaign ads affect political
engagement, rather than voter turnout. Many studies have found that negative ads cause citizens
to be more engaged and interested in the campaign, but that does not necessarily mean they are
engaged and interested enough to go to the polls on election day (Marks, Manning, and Ajzen
2012).
Although the outcome of this research did not support my hypothesis, I found the results
to be interesting and potentially helpful for other studies on the topic. Political scientists rarely
find clear-cut results and answers. That is why abundant research continues around this particular
topic and each study is a piece of the bigger puzzle.
 8
References

Adams, James and Merrill, Samuel. 2003. “Voter Turnout and Candidate Strategies in American
Elections.” The Journal of Politics. 65: 161-189.

Ansolabehere, Stephen, et al. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” The
American Political Science Review. 88: 829–838.

Clinton, Joshua and Lapinski, John. 2004. "“Targeted” advertising and voter turnout: An
Experimental Study of the 2000 Presidential Election." The Journal of Politics. 66:
69-96.

Goldstein, Ken and Freedman, Paul. 2002. “Campaign Advertising and Voter Turnout: New
Evidence for a Stimulation Effect.” Journal of Politics. 64: 721-740.

Kaid, Lynda and Boydston, John. 2009. “An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of
Negative Political Advertisements.” Communication Quarterly. 35: 193-201.

Krupnikov, Yanna. 2011. “When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of
Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science. 55:
797-813.

Marks, Eric; Mark Manning, and Icek Ajzen. 2012. “The Impact of Negative Campaign Ads.”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 42: 1280-1292.

McDonald, Michael, and Popkin, Samuel. 2001. “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter.” The
American Political Science Review. 95: 963–974.

Tenn, Steven. 2007. “The Effect of Education on Voter Turnout.” Political Analysis. 15: 446-464.

The Living Room Candidate. “Presidential Campaign Commercials 1952-2020.” Museum of the
Moving Image. Accessed November 15, 202. http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/.
United Census Bureau. “Voting and Registration Data.” Measuring America's People, Places,
and Economy. Accessed November 15, 2021. www.census.gov/data.

Wang, Ming; Itay Gabay, and Dhavan Shah. 2012. “The Civic Consequences of "Going
Negative": Attack Ads and Adolescents' Knowledge, Consumption, and Participation.”
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 644: 256-271.