Midwest Political Science Association

Variability in Citizens' Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns Author(s): Kim L. Fridkin and Patrick J.
Kenney Source: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 55, No. 2 (April 2011), pp. 307-325 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23025053 . Accessed: 24/06/2013 12:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Political Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.54.67.91 on Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:15:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Variability in Citizens' Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns

Kim L. Fridkin Patrick J. Kenney Arizona State University Arizona State University
Do
negative
advertisements the variance political rhetoric.
lower voters' in the content We employ in U.S.
evaluations and data Senate
of the targeted the 2006
candidate?
We theorize and
that there is much
to be gained sensitivity the races
by examining to negative impact featuring evidence
tone of negative from
campaign Cooperative
messages
the variance Election
in voters'
Congressional 1,045 respondents
Study contextual
to investigate Senate data
of negative a majority
campaigning aired
campaigns. and
We sampled
in 21 of the 28 U.S.
party incumbent
and challenger. the campaigns
In addition
to the survey data, and under
we collected
regarding The We
the political
advertisements
during
the news coverage
of these campaigns some
in state newspapers. substantial.
suggests rhetoric.
that the impact and relevant
of negative
information
is multifaceted,
circumstances,
find that uncivil political
negative
messages
are the most powerful,
especially
for people
with less tolerance
for negative
Is
negative campaigning effective? Do negative adver tisements lower evaluations of the targeted candi date? The preponderance of the evidence, after 25
of scholarship demonstrating that the outcomes of pres idential elections can be predicted before the onset of the fall campaign.1 All told, the conclusion that negative campaigning is ineffective is consistent with theories and evidence emanating from the voting and public opinion literature. So, why do we feel uncomfortable
negative advertisements are ineffective?
years of scholarship, suggests that negative campaigning has limited effects on citizens' impressions of candidates (e.g., Lau et al. 1999; Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner 2007). In the most comprehensive and up-to-date review of the lit erature, Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner conclude, "The find
ings reported in the research literature do not bear out
concluding
It seems
that
unrea
sonable
campaign
that the millions of dollars spent on negative

messages are for naught. Negative messages are
the proposition that attacking is an effective way to bol

ster one's own image relative to that of one's opponent"
(2007, 118). Such findings of the ineffectiveness of negative cam paigning are not surprising given the plethora of evidence suggesting that many Americans do not pay close atten
tion to political messages, negative or otherwise (e.g.,
pervasive in presidential and competitive congressional and senatorial elections (Franz et al. 2008; Geer 2006; Jacobson 2009). In the final days of competitive cam paigns, especially in the battleground states during presi dential elections, the campaign messages are often exclu sively negative (Teinowitz 2008).
Given the preponderance of negative advertisements
Zaller 1992). And, when people do pay attention to cam paign rhetoric, they are not easily persuaded (e.g., Kinder
2003). Furthermore, the ineffectiveness of negative cam paigning is entirely consistent with the cottage industry
Kim L. Fridkin Tempe, Arizona This AZ is Professor
produced by the candidates and the political parties on television, on the radio, and online, and disseminated
costs for the information obtaining negative messages
of Government, Politics, and Global Studies, Arizona State University, Coor Hall, 6th Floor, P.O. Box 873902, of Politics and Global Studies, Patrick J. Kenney is Professor and Director in the School (kimkahn@asu.edu). State University, Coor Hall, 6th Floor, P.O. Box 873902, Tempe, AZ 85287-3902 (pkenney@asu.edu). 85287-3902 State University. We would like to thank was supported by a grant from the Institute of Social Science Research at Arizona material for with supplementary An online appendix and Jill Carle for her research assistance. for her editorial assistance The data and the syntax files used in this article will be available is available at http://www.ajps.org/. by January 10, 2012, at
article
Pat Crittenden this article
http://pgs.clas.asu.edu/research. 'The most recent round in a symposium Journal of predictions appeared entitled "Forecasting Science, in PS: Political the 2008 Science and Politics, October 2008. Ten articles, authored by 15 researchers,
appeared American 2011,
National
Elections." Pp. 307-325 DOI: 10.1111/j.l540-5907.2010.00494.x
of Political Political
Vol. 55, No. 2, April 2011,
Midwest
Science
Association
307
KIM L. FRIDKIN
AND PATRICK J. KENNEY
for
voters
is approaching
zero.
Since
negative
messages
a decision
rule,
concentrating
on
the
messages
that
are
are abundant
saturation
during the final weeks of many presiden tial and subpresidential campaigns, we expect that such
coverage would influence attitudes toward the
relevant and ignoring those that are irrelevant.3 Although the social psychological literature is based on messages that are personally relevant to individuals,
we believe that the same logic extends to "relevance for
candidates.
Consistent with this expectation, some researchers
have found that negative commercials do produce critical impressions of targeted candidates (e.g., Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1997; Fridkin and Kenney 2004; Roddy and Garramone 1988).2 Moreover, political consultants and political candidates consider negative advertisements to be a valuable tool in campaigns (Abbe et al. 2001; Thurber and Nelson 2000). Therefore, we believe that additional exploration into how negative advertising affects citizens' attitudes about candidates
content
governing" in the political realm. We define "relevance"

as discussions ics that people We about issues, personal traits, for an some or other electoral negative top cam mes consider that pertinent voters find
paign.4
reason
sages far more relevant (e.g., candidates' voting records) than others (e.g., candidates' drug use in college). A re cent survey experiment examined subjects' impressions of fictitious candidates and the relevance of several com mercials (Fridkin and Kenney 2008). Findings from this study demonstrated that subjects readily rated certain
commercials as more relevant to governing than others.
Specifically, we believe that scholars have not fully investigated the variance in the
and tone of negative messages and the variance
is worthwhile.
in citizens' receptivity and tolerance of negative political rhetoric. We hypothesize that the variability in these di
mensions voters' is related attitudes to how negative information shapes toward candidates.
And, the same data indicated that relevant negative mes sages (e.g., a message about the candidate's health care proposal) are more effective in shaping attitudes than irrelevant negative messages (e.g., a message about the candidate's divorce).5 Negative commercials, in addition to varying in con tent, also vary dramatically in tone. Some negative mes sages are delivered in an uncivil and strident manner,
while sured other and negative courteous commercials tone (Geer embrace 2006). We a more expect mea that
Theory
and
Expectations
The Message
We know that negative information is likely to attract peo ple's attention, even when individuals are distracted by the demands associated with daily life (Fiske 1980). This"neg ativity bias" in impression formation is well established (e.g., Fiske 1980; Taylor 1981). The reason that people attend readily to negative information is that the content
situations that people should avoid (e.g., Kahneman and
negative messages differing in their civility will vary in their impact on citizens' evaluations of candidates. Our
expectations rest on research demonstrating that people
embrace norms that guide their interactions with other individuals. These norms about civil discourse extend to public discourse as well, with people expecting a cer tain level of civility from political actors, including candi dates running for office (Guttman 1993; Mutz and Reeves 2005). In fact, several studies have yielded consistent find ings demonstrating that not only do citizens make pre dictable distinctions between civil and uncivil messages,
of negative messages is filled with clues about events or Tversky 1979; Lau 1982; McGrawand Steenbergen 1997). In addition to the negativity of messages, people pay
more attention to messages that they perceive as relevant
to their daily lives. In social psychology, for example, a variety of models of persuasion indicate that the relevance of the message is a prerequisite for persuasion (McGuire 1964, 1989; Petty and Cacioppo 1986). McGuire (1989), in his classic model of persuasion, argues that a message
3Petty and message message 4We
Cacioppo
(1986)
also
show
that the relevance
of the a
significantly influences (see also O'Keefe 2002; that issues and
people's willingness Perloff 2003). be relevant
to process
theorize
traits can
or irrelevant
is persuasive only if people attend to and comprehend the message. And, when deciding which messages to pay
attention to, people use the relevance of the message as
for governing. For example, an irrelevant issue may be an issue no longer on the public agenda (e.g., a candidate's to a opposition war that has been over for several years). Similarly, an example of a relevant trait may be the candidate's prior political experience or the candidate's questionable integrity, as evidenced of gifts by a wealthy donor. 5To be sure, scholars by the acceptance
have found that negative advertisements are ineffective in lowering evaluations of the targeted candidate or that negative advertisements modest or inconsistent produce effects. See, for example, and Reeves (1991), Basil, Schooler, Lau and Pomper (2004), and Thorson, Christ, and Caywood (1991).
2In contrast,
other scholars
sages by distinguishing candidate's personality
date's policy positions (e.g., Brooks and Geer 2007; Geer 2006, Lau and Pomper 2004; Thorson, Christ, and Caywood 1991). However, the results of these studies are inconclusive.
have explored the role of the content of mes between negative messages focusing on the and negative messages focusing on a candi
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
but
also
uncivil
messages
consistently
produce
more
neg
ative views of politicians and the political process (e.g., Brooks and Geer 2007; Fridkin and Kenney 2008; Mutz and Reeves 2005). Given the importance of civility as a norm in pub lic discourse, how might people respond to political dis course violating these established norms? According to re search focused on product advertising, an advertisement is a social object and is evaluated by common social norms (Dahl, Frankenberger, and Manchanda 2003). When the
content or tone of an advertisement breaches norms for
whether they are civil or uncivilshould impressions of a targeted candidate.
not influence
The
Just as negative messages
Receiver
vary in terms of their relevance
and civility, we think that citizens' tolerance of negative

messages varies. In particular, we expect that certain peo
decency, good taste, and personal moral standards, the

advertisement causes surprise, thereby attracting atten
ple may be more tolerant of messages delivered in a stri dent fashion or focused on topics only tangentially related to governing. That is, for some people, "anything goes" when it comes to negative campaigning. These people believe that candidates should be free to attack their op
ponents in whatever way they choose. For other people,
tion to the novel stimulus (Meyer et al. 1991). In the political realm, a campaign advertisement vi olating norms of civility is likely to be noticed. And, consistent with theoretical and empirical research on information-processing models, advertisements that vio late the norms of civility are viewed as shocking, thereby facilitating message comprehension and enhancing mes sage retention (e.g., McGuire 1976). In exploring the impact of negative messages, it is essential to consider the civility of those messages in con junction with their relevance.6 In particular, in predicting how negative messages will influence evaluations of the candidates, the relevance of the message is paramount. Prospective voters are only interested in hearing criticisms
certain types of negative messages "cross the line" and in sult their sensibilities regarding public decency and fair
ness.
We contend that people's predispositions regarding the appropriate nature of political discourse will deter mine their receptivity to certain types of negative mes
sages delivered during campaigns. For people who have a high tolerance for negative messages (i.e., people who think any type of attack advertising is appropriate), the
relevance and civility of the message will be less influ ential. In contrast, citizens who have a low tolerance for certain types of negative political messages will be more affected by the (ir)relevance
messages.
and critiques that provide information directly relevant to how a candidate will perform in office. In contrast, we expect that negative messages focusing on topics ir
and (in)civility of negative
relevant to governing will not influence evaluations of a targeted candidate. Although all relevant messages should influence vot
ers' assessments of a targeted candidate, we expect that
We draw an analogy for illustrative purposes between tolerance toward political messages and tolerance of phys iological conditions. In the medical field, for example, we
the civility of the message will alter its impact. An un civil messageon a relevant topicwill heighten peo ple's attention to the message and will more likely be remembered (Lau 1982; Mutz and Reeves 2005). There
relevant powerful and uncivil messages images should produce candidate. negative of a targeted fore, most the
know that people who have a low tolerance for pain are more likely to feel pain when they are hurt physically. So, even if two people in a laboratory setting are exposed to
the on same amount of pain the (e.g., person a certain with level a lower of pressure tolerance a subject's finger),
for pain will report a higher level of discomfort (see, for example, Ellermeier and Westphal 1995). Similarly, we expect that people with a low tolerance for certain types
of negative messages are more sensitive and will be more
Relevant and civil messages should produce more mod

erate negative impressions. And, irrelevant messages
influenced by such messages. Therefore, the impact of

these
'Consistent and
of relevance with our notion regarding the importance find that citi (2010) civility, Sides, Lipsitz, and Grossman are distinct of the negative tone of a campaign zens' evaluations nature of the cam of the informational from their evaluations Brader (2006) and Brooks and Geer (2007) look at in their research. of different message dimensions of visual and sound stimuli in Brader explores the combination an advertisement, along with the content. Brooks and Geer (2007) paign messages. the interaction of the advertisement investigate the intersection of the civility the content of the advertisement (i.e., issues vs. traits). with
We are not the firstto hypothesize that people differ in their sensitivity to negative stimuli. For example, Ulbig and Funk (1999) theorize that people differin their "con flictavoidance" tendencies and people who are more likely to dislike conflict are less likely to participate in politics. The authors find that conflict avoidance is significantly and inversely related to political participation.7
7In the field have researchers of psychology, attention to threatening in people's found social individual cues (e.g.,
messages
will
be
greater.
differences
KIM L. FRIDKIN
These findings suggest that individual differences ex ist in people's reactions to negative or threatening stimuli. We extend this logic to negative political messages: cer tain people will be more sensitive to irrelevant and uncivil
messages and may react more strongly when exposed to
designed a "module" with unique sur asked of 1,000 respondents. In other words, vey questions the consortium
each group of scholars controlled the content of ques
tions for 1,000 citizens. In addition, these respondents

completed content a survey "common included content" 30,000 survey. respondents. The common
these types of messages during campaigns. We think that these differences in sensitivity to negative information go beyond standard political variables, such as political so phistication, partisanship, or political interest.8 Instead,
we contend that people have distinct attitudes concern
Polimetrix uses a sample matching methodology to produce a sample that is representative of the overall U.S. electorate (Rivers, n.d.). Comparisons of the CCES sam ple with census data suggest that the CCES sample is
somewhat more educated and younger than the popula
ing their sensitivity or receptivity to negative political rhetoric. Some citizens have an easier time tolerating negative political messages, while others dislike public
criticism progress. In this article, we hope to advance our understanding and grow weary of such messages as campaigns
tion at large. However, the CCES sample matches census data in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity composition (Hill et al. 2007). And, analysis conducted by Hill et al. (2007) suggests that the 2006 CCES produces an Internet sample that looks similar to existing RDD phone surveys. For our "module," Polimetrix sampled about 75 re spondents in 21 of the 28 U.S. Senate races featuring a majority party incumbent and a majority party chal lenger, for a total of 1,045 respondents.9 The races varied dramatically in terms of competition, in the amount of money spent, and in the amount of media attention given
to the contests. In addition to the survey data, we also collected con
of the impact of negative messages on people's impres sions of campaigns by examining the intersection between the relevance and civility of negative messages and how people differ in their reactions to these types of mes
sages. We rely on a representative survey sample of over
1,000 respondents along with data assessing the content of political communications during the 2006 senatorial
campaigns. measurements. We turn now to a discussion of our data and
textual data regarding the political advertisements aired during the Senate campaigns and the news coverage of
these campaigns in state newspapers. Turning first to
Data
This study uses data from the 2006 Cooperative Congres sional Election Study (CCES) to investigate the impact of negative campaigning in U.S. Senate races. The CCES is a preelection/postelection Internet survey, conducted by Polimetrix, Inc., on behalf of a consortium of scholars
at 37 colleges and universities. Each group of scholars in
the political advertising data, we collected advertisements from the National Journal website. The National Journal website included downloadable links to almost all U.S. Senate advertisements publicly available (Grose and Glo betti 2007).10 We searched the candidates' own websites,
as well as other websites, to increase the completeness of
candidates'
search, we
advertisement samples. With this additional

were able to include advertisements from the
following races: Utah, California, Texas, and Wyoming. We coded 302 advertisements for the 42 candi
dates.11 Some contests featured a great number of political
facial expressions). For example, anxious individuals threatening appear to be more sensitive to threat stimuli and are quicker at et al. 1998). Also, psy perceiving threatening messages (Bradley chologists relying on functional magnetic imaging find that indi viduals who score higher on neuroticism demonstrate higher brain have reactivity to negative pictures (Canli et al. 2001). Researchers also suggested that there are cultural differences in people's desire to avoid conflict. In particular, many East Asian cultures value har with European Americans mony and conflict avoidance, compared (see Lind, Huo, and Tyler 1994). In addition, some feminist scholars (e.g., Gilligan procedures suggest that women with men. compared 1982) have explored prefer less confrontational
9In selecting the sample of races, we stratified by the competitive ness of the incumbent/challenger contest. In particular, we sampled 10 races classified as competitive or leaning) (toss-up by the Cook Political Democrat Report and 11 races or solid Republican). because contested of limited classified as noncompetitive (solid We did not include open races in resources and the small number of
our sample open races
tion, we present
Informa (n = 5). In the online Supporting information about the races in our sample.
8To be sure, researchers to negative campaigning. Independents negative and Kenney however, 2006;
who
is most
For example, some scholars are more likely than partisans to be "demobilized" by and Iyengar 1997; Kahn campaigning (e.g., Ansolabehere These findings explorations, (see Brooks
susceptible suggest that
10Ad Spotlight at the National Journal website featured 544 adver tisements for 15 of the 21 races included in our sample. We stratified the population of advertisements on Ad Spotlight by candidate and collected 11 Overall, estimate a maximum the mean of 21 ads per candidate. number of advertisements of 0 and a maximum of our advertising coded per candidate of 21. We cannot because we
1999; Lau and Pomper 2004). have yielded somewhat inconsistent and Kugler 2003). Sigelman
was 7.2, with a minimum the completeness
sample
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
advertisements
aired
repeatedly
over
the months
preced
ing Election Day. In contrast, in some Senate campaigns,

there were no advertisements on television at all. In cod
Measurement
of Key Concepts
ing the political advertisements, we assessed a variety of

factors associated with the tone of the advertisement, in
There are no established measures for defining the rele vance and civility of commercials.
of no prior studies that have measured
In addition, we know
respondents' toler
cluding the civility of each commercial, the relevance of

its content, Turning data from and the substance of its message.12 we collected newspaper from to the news each state's coverage,
ance for irrelevant and uncivil messages. Consequently, in

this section we explain how we developed new measures
largest
circulating
newspaper
October 1 to Election Day. We coded 2,077 news articles

for the 21 Senate races. In coding the news content, we
for these key concepts. We spend a significant amount of time and effort determining the validity of these mea sures. We employ three tests to determine the validity of the measures assessing the relevance and civility of the commercials, and we conduct two validity tests for the
survey tive questions measuring citizens' tolerance of nega messages.
assessed a variety of factors associated

the coverage, including the number,
with the tone of

and source
content,
of criticisms published about each candidate.13
have
no measure
of the population
of commercials during the 2006
aired
the 2006
Unfortunately, campaigns. often or where the ads were shown
we do not have access
during to how The To
Relevance and Civility in Negative

Commercials
the political content advertisements, coders
election.
the main source for data Advertising Project (WiscAds), did regarding the frequency and timing of political advertisements, not collect data for the 2006 election cycle. This is clearly a limita tion of our advertising data. To measure the reach of the political Wisconsin and es spending campaign advertising in our study, we employed term where each candidate's timated a multiplicative advertising However, was interacted with the candidate's spending. campaign this alternative our models specification in the upcoming did not improve analyses. the performance
analyze
distinguished between messages that were relevant and

irrelevant for governing.14 For example, negative com
mercials classified as relevant by coders contained the fol

lowing examples of content: that "The move with as Senator voted to give or "The In contrast, contained tax breaks Senator negative for companies voted 96% of the overseas..." Bush." irrelevant
of
time
12 In conducting our content analysis, we followed the procedures described by Neuendorf (2002). A team of eight research assistants and undergraduate political science students) coded the (graduate and a with the codesheet were provided Coders advertisements. for coding each variable detailed instructions containing in the online Supporting is available Information). (the codesheet in the codebook The comprehensive helped to reduce guidelines to were instructed coders. Coders differences among individual as if they were "the average citizen." For view the advertisements codebook example, while a political science ing increases in the size of government may not make such an inference. person viewing the advertisement the coders com the content training procedure, analysis During Differences advertisements. pleted a pilot coding of 10 political student may be aware that favor is a liberal position, a typical
commercials
classified
content such as the following: "The candidates' support ers are from Hollywood" or "My opponent parties with Playboy playmates." Coders also assessed the civility of the message in each of the political advertisements.15 We adopted a generous interpretation for determining civility given the rough and-tumble nature of campaign messages in U.S. Senate campaigns (Kahn and Kenney 1999). That is, there needed
A copy of this codesheet formation. 14The codebook is available in the online Supporting In
and, when necessary, adjustments among coders were discussed The pilot procedure and codebook. were made to the codesheet so that all coders were coders' standardize the techniques helped assessing the content in the same way. Given the comprehensive effects by coders during maturation ness of the training procedure, the content analysis process were reduced. In addition, coders were as a way to reduce potential kept blind to the purpose of the study bias. Eighty advertisements (10 per coder) were subject to reliability the reliability checks, com analysis. One of the authors conducted with the coding by paring the author's coding of the advertisements the research assistants. Cohen's kappa was used to assess intercoder reliability, with a resulting level of agreement among 13A team political outlined of six research science students) in footnote score of .91 (p < .001), coders. assistants coded indicating a high
for coding the relevance of the adver the content of the advertisement consider you focus on diverse subjects, relevant for governing? Advertisements such as: a candidate's past drug use (e.g., in college), a candidate's of Represen vote for a tax increase while serving in the House instructions tisement read, "Do tatives, a former marital opponent infidelity the candidate accusing spouse of a candidate a decade in a divorce proceeding earlier, or lack of electoral her for his or candidate a criticizing PEOPLE The question is: do you think MOST viewing would consider irrelevant, the content very relevant, or very irrelevant?"
of
an ex an
perience. advertisement relevant,
somewhat
somewhat
and (graduate the news coverage.
undergraduate The procedure
12 for the political advertising content analysis content analysis. An intercoder for the newspaper was employed = kappa kappa was performed; reliability analysis using Cohens .93 (p < .001), indicating a high level of agreement among coders.
instructions read, "Some ads, 15For the civility code, the codebook in a civil manner (diplo even if negative, present the information ads rely on a more matically, without derision, etc.), while other Do you think uncivil tone (e.g., overly strident, rude, discourteous). civil, MOST PEOPLE watching the ad would consider it somewhat very civil, somewhat uncivil, or very uncivil?"
KIM L. FRIDKIN
to be an explicit use of harsh, shrill, or pejorative adjec tives describing candidates, their policies, or their per sonal traits for an advertisement to be considered uncivil.
The following are sentences taken from advertisements
Fifty-three
percent
of the
negative
advertisements
were
categorized
times record to says
as civil by coders: "The candidate voted 18

taxes," or "He In talks conservative, but his otherwise." comparison, advertisements
raise
measures of relevance and civility. First, we look at whether the number of criticisms per advertisement in creases as the relevance and civility of the advertisement
decreases. We expect that the nastiest commercials (com
classified as civil, while 47% were considered uncivil. We perform three tests to assess the validity of the
with the following messages were coded as uncivil in tone: "The Senator shows a disgusting display of arrogance," or
"After all these years, can't he offer more than smears and
mercials that are less relevant and less civil) will also in
clude the greatest number of criticisms.18 The content
distortions?"
These examples are from actual commercials aired
analysis confirms our expectations; the number of crit icisms per advertisement is statistically significant and
during the 2006 senatorial campaigns

ferences between irrelevant and
and illustrate dif

messages and
relevant
negatively correlated with the civility of the commercials (Kendall's tau b = .27, p < .01) and relevance of the commercials (Kendall's taub = .26, p < .04).19 Second, we examine whether the relevance and civil of ity political commercials are related to the competitive ness of the campaigns. We expect that candidates running in competitive races would be more likely to produce neg ative messages embracing an uncivil tone and focusing
on irrelevant messages, since prior research shows that
differences between civil and uncivil messages. According

to our sample coders coders, were scored most viewed 88% of the negative on as commercials a relevant relevant topic.16 and only in our The 12% as focusing of the ads
as irrelevant.17 This is not surprising given that campaign

managers resonate and with insiders voters' have concerns argued and that worries attacks (Fenno need to 1996;
Kahn and Kenney 1999). The negative messages, on the other hand, generated more variance in terms of civility.
in hard-fought races negativityin generalincreases Lau and Pomper 2004). Kahn and 2004; (e.g., Kenney We find that competitive races (i.e., fewer than 20 points separating the candidates
messages with a less civil
in preelection polls) generate

tone and with less relevant con
16If we use the more vertisements Jamieson
traditional
as "attack
operationalization ads" or "comparative ads"
of negative ad (e.g., Geer 2006;
and further distinguish between et al. 2000) negative advertisements focusing on traits and issues, we find that attack advertisements focusing on issues and comparative issues are the most common types of negative com emphasizing were mercials. In particular, 26% of the negative advertisements as issue attack ads, and 26% of the ads were classified categorized advertisements as comparative issue cusing on personality of the advertisements 15% And, 15% ads. fo negative advertisements In our sample, only 6% were less common. are "comparative trait advertisements," are categorized as "trait attack ads are issue/trait attack ads and advertisements. ads." 12% In contrast,
tent when compared with lopsided races (i.e., more than 20 points separating the candidates in preelection polls). In particular, the average civility score is .23 in com
petitive races and .05 in noncompetitive races (p < .10, one-tailed test). The average relevance score is .79 in com petitive races and 1.0 in noncompetitive one-tailed test).20
As evance sured a final and validity check, we look civility of the negative
races (p < .05,

the (as rel
and
at whether
of the advertisements
commercials people's
mea
of the negative are issue/trait comparative negative umented
The preponderance of with negative trait ads, has been doc find For example, Franz et al. (2008) that the majority of negative ads aired during U.S. House, Senate, and presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 focused on issues. issue ads, compared by other scholars. relevance of negative commercials is less measuring than simply distinguishing between negative com straightforward mercials focusing on issues or traits, we think that the effort is worthwhile. trait versus Some First, prior work examining negative issue advertisements the impact of negative has been inconclusive. 17While
by the content
analysis)
predict
assessment
of the tone of the Senate campaigns

have captured the tone and content
in their state. If we
of the advertisements
properly, then these indicators should be strongly cor

related with respondents' perceptions of the tone of the
find that negative issue advertisements researchers are more effective than negative trait advertisements (e.g., Min 2004), while others find that negative trait advertisements are more influential than negative issue appeals (e.g., Brooks and Geer 2007). Therefore, the trait/issue dichotomy Second, may not be a critical dimension. trait advertisements are not necessarily irrelevant. Accord negative ing to our content analysis, 40% of the negative trait commercials are irrelevant, while 60% are relevant. Second, Brooks and Geer's do not differ in their view of (2007) study shows that respondents the informational value of civil negative trait commercials and civil negative issue commercials, suggesting that the issue/trait dimen sion is not the key dimension relevance. determining
18All commercials were scored on a 5-point scale: 2 (very uncivil or very irrelevant), 1 (somewhat uncivil or somewhat relevant), 0 (neutral), civil or somewhat +1 (somewhat +2 (very relevant), civil or very relevant). 19We rely on a one-tailed test since our hypothesis is directional. We use Kendall's tau b because of the ordinal nature of the relevance and civility variable. 20We looked course the relevance and civility of political dis with the seniority of the senator. Senior senators are less vulnerable and are less likely to generate quality challengers (Jacobson 2009). We find a significant positive correlation between increase the seniority at whether
of the senator and the civility (r = .51, p < .01) of the and the seniority of the senator and the relevance commercials, (r = .55, p < .02) of the political advertisements.
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
campaigns. We asked people during the postelection sur

vey "very tive," to describe positive," or "very the tone of the U.S. Senate campaign nega of the as "somewhat negative."21 positive," To predict "somewhat people's views
Table
1 MLM/MLE Respondents' Overall Tone Campaign1
Estimates Predicting of the Assessments of the U.S. Senate
tone of the campaign, we include the measures of civility and relevance of the candidates' campaign commercials.22 We expect that as civility of the negative commercials in creases, people will view the campaign discourse as more positive. In contrast, we expect that the relationship be
tween the relevance of negative messages and the tone of
Campaign Advertisement Relevance
Tone Characteristics Advertisement
Fixed
Components
of Negative
,03(.01)*** ,03(.01)*** ,005(.008) ,04(.02)**
Civility of Negative Advertisement

Campaign Characteristics
the campaign to be negative. That is, as the relevance of

negative the messages increases, we more expect negative people's since we view of campaign to become expect
Competition Criticisms in Candidates' Ads

Criticisms Constant Variance Intercept Components in the Newspapers
,001(.0007)* 1.84(.09)*** .05(.01)** 482/21
relevant negative messages will be more influential than irrelevant negative messages. To avoid specification error, we include several stan
control variables that are correlated with people's dard
N (survey) /N(states)
'Parameter ses. estimates are followed by standard
views of the overall tenor of a senatorial campaign. We include a simple measure of the number of criticisms aired
important to be certain that the measures of the relevance
errors in parenthe
in the candidates' political commercials.23 This control is and the civility of the ads are not simply picking up overall negativity. We also include a measure of the number of
tone is a scale ranging from variable campaign Note: The dependent charac The advertisement to 4 (very positive). 1 (very negative) to high (civility or teristics run from low (civility or relevance) relevance). tionalization See text for additional information about of the variables, and see Supporting tests:
the opera for Information
criticisms published about the candidates in the largest circulating newspaper in the state.24 We also control for the context of the campaign by including a measure of the
closeness of the campaign based on preelection polls.25
exact question wording. P-values are based on one-tailed ***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10.
analysis are presented in Table l.26 The dependent variable, tone of the cam The results of the MLM/MLE
their campaign characterized 21Twenty-five percent of respondents 13% an "somewhat as "very negative," 22% answered negative," and 15% said 5% swered "somewhat "very positive," positive," answered "don't were eliminated who answered know." Respondents from the analysis in Table 1. "don't know"
paign, ranges from 1 (very negative) to 4 (very positive).

The results demonstrate that the tone of the candidates'
commercials become increasingly civil, respondents view the campaign as more positive. And, as expected, the rele vance of the negative advertisements is negatively related
to people's candidates' topics, people assessment negative see to the the of the tone commercials campaign of the campaign. focus as more on more When relevant
commercials significantly influences people's perceptions of the tone of the campaign. As the candidates' negative
22In this analysis, we multiply the relevance rating (or civility rat in in the advertisements of criticisms ing) by the total number Then, we combine order to capture the intensity of the message. for incumbents of relevant negative advertisements the measure since we are for challengers and relevant negative advertisements the Similarly, we combine general tone of campaign. predicting and chal for incumbents measures of civil negative advertisements lengers. 23This measure in the candidates' deviation 24The is a simple count The commercials. in a Senate of the number of criticisms aired average number of criticisms race is 13.94 (with a standard
negative. of crit
Turning
control
variables,
the number
icisms presented in the candidates' commercials leads people to view the campaign as more negative. It is im
portant that this variable, as well as the relevance and civility of the advertisements, reaches statistical signifi
cance, demonstrating that our measures of relevance and
in the advertisements of 8.06).
number
(with a standard
of press criticisms in a Senate of 114.0). deviation
race averaged
117.3
in civility are not simply tapping the number of criticisms in the criticisms of the ads. Similarly, as the number press increases, people are significantly more likely to view the campaign tone as negative.
Under these in the same state or campaign. located spondents error terms of uncorrelated the OLS assumptions circumstances, and Jones 2002). violated 2004; (Luke Steenbergen maybe
in the 2006 New 25We relied on preelection polling data published incumbent York Times Election Guide, and we subtracted support from challenger support. modeling because (MLM) we have with maximum a cluster likeli re
26We employ multilevel hood estimation (MLE)
of survey
KIM L. FRIDKIN
Individual
Differences in Tolerance toward Incivility and Irrelevance
irrelevance.
In
our
first test,
we
assess
whether
theoreti
We contend that people differ in their tolerance toward negative campaigning, and we have developed four survey
items ing. to assess We people's tolerance for negative with four campaign and presented respondents statements
cally relevant variables help predict people's level of toler ance toward negative messages. To predict people's level
of tolerance toward negative messages, we look at two
asked them to indicate whether they strongly agree, some

what each agree, somewhat The disagree, first two discourse, or strongly statements and tolerance an "agree" tap disagree the with statement. person's state com the
(i.e., the gen demographic der of the respondent, the respondent's age, and the re spondent's education level) and political variables (i.e., the respondent's political sophistication, the respondent's sets of variables: ideology, and the strength of the respondent's party af filiation).28 Research examining the connection between
negative and campaigning may and turnout most scholars suggests strongly find that to that women negative women Independents In react some
variables
tolerance ments mentary.
for uncivil measure We
the second
two
the person's vary whether
for irrelevant response means
respondent likes or dislikes uncivil or irrelevant negative

commercials.27 The four items are as follows:
messages.
particular,
and Independents are more likely to become demobilized as negativity increases (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1997; Kahn and Kenney 1999; Kern and Just 1997). These in dividuals may be more affected by campaign negativity
because messages.29 they are less tolerant of uncivil and irrelevant
Some
negative
advertisements
are
so nasty
that
stop paying attention to what the candidates are saying. Mean-spirited commercials attacking the oppo nent are appropriate during election campaigns.
Negative advertisements attacking a candidate's
We estimate two OLS models, one predicting an in dividual's tolerance toward irrelevant messages and one predicting an individual's tolerance toward uncivil mes sages.30 The results presented in Table 2 indicate that certain people are significantly more tolerant of uncivil
28Strength of party affiliation is measured by recoding the 7-point scale into 3 points (strong partisans = 3, weak party identification = 2, and Independents = 1). Respondent's is partisans ideology measured on a 100-point scale (where 0 is extremely ideological liberal and 100 is extremely conservative), and we recode the 100 = 2,41-60 = 3,61-80 point scale into five points (0-20 = 1,21-40 = 4, 81-100 = 5). The measure of political takes sophistication on one of three values: 0 (incorrectly placing both parties on the scale), 1 (correctly placing one of the parties on the ide ideological ological scale), 2 (correctly placing both parties on the ideological include locating the Democratic scale). Correct placements party on the liberal side of the scale and locating the Republican party on the conservative side of the scale. Political interest is measured with a 3-point scale ranging from very interested (3), to somewhat inter ested (2), to not very interested (1). Gender is coded 1 = male, 0 = is an interval measure female; age is an interval measure; education based on years of schooling. We look at ideology to (as opposed because we know that Republicans are more strength of ideology) with Democrats likely to use negative advertising, compared (e.g., Lau and Pomper 2001; West 2010), and researchers have found that are less likely to be demobilized by negative campaign with Democrats and Independents (Ansolabehere ing, compared and Iyengar 1997). Republicans 29We also looked party) was related at whether (like strength of strength of ideology to tolerance of uncivil and irrelevant negative
personal life are inappropriate. I find negative political commercials

the opponent's personal life as a young
attacking
person to
be interesting. Responses to the two civility questions suggest that most people in our sample do not like mean-spirited
campaigns. agree" and For 35% are example, "somewhat ".. .so nasty 47% of respondents agree" that that I "strongly ad at campaign paying
vertisements
stop
tention." Similarly, 45%

agree" and 27% "somewhat are commercials..." Turning
of respondents
disagree" that during types
"strongly dis
"mean-spirited a campaign. more
appropriate of certain
to the relevance
of attacks,
than half of the respondents (55%) "strongly agree" and 27% "somewhat agree" that attacking a candidate's per sonal life is inappropriate. Similarly, 61% of the people in the survey "strongly disagree" and 21% "somewhat disagree" that negative advertisements attacking a candi date's personal life as a young person are interesting. These
responses resonate with the electorate's long-standing an
tagonism toward negative campaign rhetoric (Kahn and Kenney 2004). We conduct two tests to examine the validity of the individual measures of tolerance toward incivility and
27See the online questions Information, Supporting used in this study. for a copy of the survey
In both cases, we find strength of ideology is signifi messages. cantly related to tolerance, with strong ideologues being more tol erant of irrelevant findings with more moderate negative messages than respondents ideological profiles. These findings mirror the for strength of party identification. the two measures of tolerance toward irrelevant and uncivil
30We combine messages measures index.
into a single relevance the two index, and we combine of tolerance toward uncivil messages into a single civility Both indices range from a low of 2 (not tolerant) to a high of 8
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
Table
2 OLS
Regression Commercials1
Predicting
Respondents'
Tolerance
of Irrelevant
and Uncivil
Negative
Tolerance
of Irrelevant Tolerance of Uncivil Commercials
Commercials
Political Characteristics
Strength of Party
. 11 (.04)*** 24( 04)*** -,19(.07)*** ,24(.07)*** .03(.03) -.005(.003)** .44(.09)*** 1.95(.28)*** .10 979
08 2 09 10 04 06 16
.12(.04)*** .20(.04)*** .09(.07) ,27(.08)*** ,02(.03) .01(.003)*** ,53(.09)*** 2.55(.29)*** .10 987
.08 .16 -.04 .11 -.02 -.13 .18
Ideology Sophistication
Political Interest Demographics Education
Age
Gender Constant R2 N 1 Unstandardized regression coefficients
are followed
by standard
errors in parentheses;
beta coefficients of uncivil
are reported
after levels of statistical
variables measuring tolerance of irrelevant messages and tolerance for exact question wording. to a high of 8 (very tolerant). See Supporting Information P-values are based on one-tailed tests: "*p < .01; "p < .05; *p < .10.
significance. Note: The dependent
messages
range from 2 (not very tolerant)
and irrelevant messages. We find that people who are more strongly attached to the political parties are more tolerant of uncivil and irrelevant messages, as are people who are more interested in political campaigns. Ideology is related to people's tolerance to negativity, with con servatives being more tolerant of uncivil and irrelevant messages, compared with more liberal respondents. We also find that men are more tolerant of uncivil and irrel
evant negative messages when compared with women. In
seeing during their state's Senate race. These questions

are asked in the postelection wave, whereas the questions
assessing the respondents' levels of tolerance regarding relevance and civility were asked in the preelection wave of the survey. We find that as people's tolerance for ir
relevant advertisements increased, they were more likely
to view the advertisements they saw as relevant. The cor relation between people's tolerance for irrelevant com
mercials and their relevance ratings for the incumbent
addition, older people are less tolerant of uncivil and ir relevant messages. And, politically sophisticated citizens, who are most skilled at sorting through relevant and ir
relevant messages.31 discourse, appear to be less tolerant of irrelevant
and challenger commercials was .21 (p < .01) and .13 (p < .01), respectively.32 Similarly, as people's tolerance
for uncivil advertisements increased, people were more
likely to view the advertisements they saw as civil. The correlation between people's tolerance for uncivil com mercials and their civility ratings for the incumbent and challenger commercials was .16 (p < .01) and .08 (p < .05), respectively.33
Based on the series of tests reported here, we be
A second test to establish the validity of our tolerance measures is to examine whether people's level of political tolerance predicts how they view political commercials.
In our survey, we asked respondents to rate the useful
ness and civility of negative commercials
they reported
lieve that we have developed valid measures of the civility
(highly tolerant). The correlation between these two civility items is between these two relevance items .25, p < .01, and the correlation is .48, p < .01. We rely on the Spearman's reliability rho to calculate the correlation between the measures because of the ordinal nature of the tolerance 3IWe reestimate ordinal nature unchanged Information. measures. the model with ordered logit regression given the variable. However, the results are Supporting
32The correlations ordinal and
are based
on Kendall's
tau b since
the data
are
tests since our are based on one-sided the p-values do not change sub are directional. The correlations hypotheses rho. stantively if we rely on Spearman's 33We also find that people who are less tolerant of uncivil and people who are less tolerant of irrelevant discourse discourse (Kendall's political
of the dependent and this can be seen in Table SI in the online
political as negative are significantly more likely to view campaigns tau b = .06, p < .02, tau b = .08, p < .01; Kendall's
respectively).
KIM L. FRIDKIN
and
the
relevance
of
the
candidates'
advertisements
as
The
analyses
take
place
in two
steps.
First,
we examine
well as valid measures of respondents' tolerance toward uncivil and irrelevant advertisements. We have demon
strated that these measures are related to a set of theoreti
how negative campaign messages shape people's evalua tions of the Senate candidates. With this initial analysis, we examine how the interplay between the tone (civility) and content (relevance) of the messages shapes citizens' im pressions of the candidates. Second, we examine whether citizens' tolerance of negative campaigning affects how the tone and content of negative messages shape citizens' views of candidates. As discussed earlier, we expect that only relevant neg ative commercials will depress people's impressions of the
targeted candidate. Among these relevant negative com
cally important predictors. And, we have shown that these measures predict citizens' views of the Senate campaigns as well as their views of the candidates' commercials.
Findings
We turn now to exploring the key question in this article: do negative advertisements lower evaluations of a targeted candidate? As we have argued throughout the article, we
believe that certain types of negative messages are more
mercials, we hypothesize that uncivil advertisements will be more powerful than civil advertisements. Based on these theoretical expectations, we categorize the commer cials of each candidate as relevant and uncivil, relevant and civil, and irrelevant. In particular, if a candidate's commercials are rated as high on relevance and low on civility, the candidate is given a score of 3.35 If a can
didate's commercials are rated as high on relevance and
powerful than others. Specifically, we expect that the rele vance of the message combined with the message's civility will influence evaluations of the candidates. In addition,
we expect that the influence of the negative messages on
citizens' assessments of candidates will depend on peo ple's tolerance for negative campaigning. With the important independent variables in place, we focus on developing several key dependent variables
that capture citizens' evaluations of the candidates seek
high on civility, the candidate is given a score of 2. Finally, if a candidate's commercials are rated as low on relevance, the candidate is given a score of l.36 To properly estimate the effect of the relevance and civility of negative advertisements on people's views of the
candidates, we need to control for several rival factors. To
ing U.S. Senate seats in 2006. We assess four traditional dimensions that capture individuals' evaluations of the candidates: (1) citizens' impressions of the candidates' personality traits, (2) individuals' affective assessments of the candidates, (3) voters' views regarding the candidates' abilities to deal with several issues, and (4) citizens' overall favorability ratings of the candidates (Abramowitz 1988; Campbell et al. 1960; Kinder 1986; Wright and Berkman
1986). are The questions primarily used from to tap the dependent NES variables derived standard measures.34
begin, we need to assess whether candidates who engage in negative campaigning are susceptible to a "backlash" effect; that is, candidates who attack their opponents may hurt their own evaluations.37 Relying on the theoretical
35 To develop commercials content
an overall
measure
of the relevance we utilize
of a candidate's
during a campaign, analysis of the individual
the coding from the advertisements to derive an over
Information for exact question word Supporting five questions traits, we combine ing. To measure asking respon dents to rate the candidates on the following trait dimensions: intel and caring. The resulting ligence, leadership, honesty, experience, index and bach's
34See the online
for the candidates' commercials as low, medium, or high in terms of relevance. We then multiply the relevance ratings in order by the total number of criticisms in the advertisements to capture the intensity relevant advertisements of the message. Since we expect that only will be effective, we take the mean of the scores and classify the candidate's as message
all race estimate
of the items in each trait index: Cron consistency = .84 for incumbent traits. traits, .84 for challenger alpha To measure four questions affect, we combine asking respondents whether the candidates make them hopeful, worried, proud, and
for the internal
ranges from 5 to 20, with a mean of 14.4 for incumbents 12.98 for challengers. We relied on Cronbach's alpha to test
resulting relevance having a low (below the mean) or high (above the mean) score for relevance. We repeat the same procedure for civility, producing a low (below the mean) or high (above the mean) score for civility. Based on these scores, we create the 3-point relevance/civility in dex. The mean for incumbents 36We examine for the relevance/civility advertising and 1.65 for challengers. the measure is 1.79
angry. The resulting index ranges from 4 to 12, with a mean of = 7.80 for incumbents and 7.53 for challengers. Cronbach's alpha .90 for incumbent affect and .87 for challenger affect. To measure we combine
for incumbents incumbent
two questions to rate the asking respondents for dealing with the economy and health competence care. The resulting index ranges from 2 to 12, with a mean of 7.77 issues, candidate's issues and 7.20 for challengers. and .94 for challenger Cronbach's issues.
between the 3-point rele relationship and respondents' assessments of the tone of We find a significant negative relationship between the relevance/civility index and people's views regarding the tone vance/civility the campaign. index of the campaign. In particular, as advertisements become more relevant and more uncivil, people view the campaign as more neg ative. The Kendall tau b is .39 (p < .01) for the incumbents' commercials 37Two recent and .45 reviews effects (p < .01) for the challengers' commercials. and size
favorability score is based on a 10-point for incumbents and 4.68 for challengers. For each of these a high score represents a more positive score. measures,
alpha = .95 for Finally, the overall scale. The mean is 5.36 four
of the literature find that
on the likelihood who engage
of backlash
candidates
in attack
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
framework introduced earlier, we expect to find a back lash effect when candidates attack their opponents with uncivil and irrelevant messages. We expect citizens to find these messages offensive because they are delivered in an
uncivil manner and focus on topics not germane to gov
erning. To measure the backlash effect,we employ a binary coding where the sponsoring candidates' commercials re ceive a score of 1 if these commercials are rated as low on relevance and low on civility. All other combinations
commercials receive a score of 0.38
political advertisements perform precisely as expected. Overall, in each of the eight equations, the measure tap ping the relevance and civility of political advertising is statistically significant and is signed in the hypothesized direction. In each case, as relevance and incivility of the
advertisements increase, people's evaluations of the tar
The MLM/MLE results predicting evaluations of the incumbents and challengers are presented in Table 3. The findings demonstrate that the relevance and civility of the
of
geted candidates
gardless of whether
decline. This finding is consistent re

respondents are evaluating the can
We include additional measures assessing the context of the campaign as well as measures tapping the political profiles of the respondents. We include a variable mea
didates in terms of (1) personality traits, (2) affective impressions, (3) issue competence, or (4) overall impres sions.41 In fact, the relevance and civility of the adver
tisements are more powerful and more consistent in their
suring the number of press criticisms published about the candidate to capture the general negativity of the cam the paign.39 In addition, we include a measure assessing competitiveness of the campaign. Based on prior research examining campaign intensity, we expect incumbents to be evaluated more favorably in noncompetitive races and challengers to be rated more positively in competitive races (Kahn and Kenney 1999; Westlye 1991). Finally, we control for respondents' ideological and political pref erences since people are likely to rate a candidate more positively when they share the candidate's party and ide ological positions.40
impact than the amount of press criticisms or the close ness of the race, suggesting that the relevance and civility measure is capturing something beyond the general neg ativity of the campaign and the competitiveness of the
contest.
In addition, the influence of the relevance and civil ity measure is more powerful in the challenger models than in the incumbent models, according to the param eter estimates. This indicates that the content and tone of incumbents'
evaluations
advertising is more effective at lowering

challengers than vice versa. For exam
of the
strategies 2009;
can expect to hurt their own evaluations (Lau and Rovner and Rovner 2007). And, the decline in their Sigelman, The done to their opponent. own image may offset any damage effect employ a backlash studies of the identifying preponderance and Doan 1999). designs (e.g., Chang 2003; Houston experimental A small number of studies examining survey data find some evi Lau, dence for a backlash 2004). effect (e.g., Fridkin and Kenney 2004; Lau and Pomper
ple, in the model predicting respondents' assessments of candidates' personality traits, the parameter estimate for the relevance and civility variable is .76 in the challenger model and .42 in the incumbent model.
To provide a clearer picture of how the relevance
38 for and civility developed of relevance We rely on the measures the backlash ef index when operationalizing the relevance/civility received a score of 1 on the backlash candidate fect. The sponsoring scored below commercials candidate's if the sponsoring measure candidate's and civility. If the sponsoring the mean on relevance received a mix score (e.g., above the mean on civil or a high score (i.e., above the ity, below the mean on relevance) mean on relevance and above the mean on civility), the sponsoring received a score of 0. candidate commercials 39We also included simple didate's summation an additional of the number measure
and civility of negative messages influence citizens' assessments of candidates' personal traits, we calcu late the "first differences" for the maximum likelihood
1, 21-40
= (1)
2, 41-60
3, 61-80 value
4, 81-100
calculated
the absolute
of the difference
= 5). Then, we between the re placement of the dif
self-placement ideological spondent's of the incumbent's ideology and (2) ference
and respondent's the absolute value
of negative advertising: a of criticisms offered in each can
does not capture This measure political advertisements. and civility of the candidates' the relevance negative communi the of incumbents, evaluations cations. In the models predicting number of criticisms of incumbents ments never significantly In the models predicting criticisms of challengers depressed significantly 40To code placement placement ical scale.
and the respondent's between self-placement ideological of the challenger's the respondent's ideology. Finally, we placement from the to the incumbent closeness the respondent's subtracted The resulting ideologi to the challenger. closeness respondent's and incumbent cal proximity score ranges from 4 (the respondent scale) to 4 (the respon share the same location on the ideological on the ideological dent and the challenger share the same location scale). 41 variables displayed in Table 3, In addition to the four dependent we also develop a model estimating the impact of the relevance and on vote choice. We find that the measure civility of the commercials commercials the candidates' assessing the relevance and civility of is significant (estimate = .07, with a standard error of .02). Party in the model, as is com and ideological proximity are significant effect fail to and the backlash news criticisms However, petition. reach statistical significance.
advertise in the challengers' of the incumbents. depressed evaluations the number of of challengers, evaluations never advertisements in the incumbents' of the challenger.
evaluations
self proximity, we rely on the respondent's ideological the scale and on a 100-point respondent's ideological on the same ideolog and challenger of the incumbent scales into five points (0-20 We recoded the 100-point
KIM I. FRIDKIN
AND PATRICK
J. KENNEY
Table
3 MLM/MLE Relevance
of U.S. Estimates Evaluations Predicting and Civility of Negative Commercials1 Affect1

Traits
Senate
Candidates:
The Impact
of
Issues Incumbents
Overall
Evaluations
Fixed
Components Commercials
Candidate
'
Relevance/Incivility
Backlash Respondent Effect Characteristics
.29(.16)** .55(36)* ,41(.05)*** ,64(.05)*** .003(.01) ~.007(.003)*** 7.67(.12)***
,42(.23)** .93(.52)** 48( 08)*** .98(08)*** ,03(.02)* .01(.003)*** 14.28(.17)*** . 19(. 16)* 622/21
.46(.21)** .50(.48) 43( 06)*** .71 (.06)*** .02(.01)** ,003(.003) 7.73(. 16)*** ,23(.13)* 716/21 Challengers
.33(.14)*** ,57(.32)** .51 (.05)*** .75(.06)*** .006(.009) .006(.002)*** 5.17(. 10)*** .04(.04) 793/21
Party Proximity Ideological Proximity

Campaign Competition Characteristics
Criticisms in the News

Constant Variance Intercept Components
N (Survey)/N (states)
Fixed
.10(.07)* 646/21
Candidate
Backlash Respondent Party Effect Characteristics
.36(.25)* .38(.36) .55(.06)*** .47(.05)*** ,01(.02) .002(.004) 7.57(.17)***
.76(.39)** .06(.56) 69( 09)*** .82(09)*** ,0007(.03)
.60(.22)*** .36(.31) .51(.07)*** ,52(.07)*** .003(.02) .0005(.004) 7.21 (. 15)*** o * 479/21
.36(.25)* ,07(.35) .63(.05)*** .61(.05)*** .006(.02) .0002(.003)
Proximity
Ideological Proximity
Competition Criticisms in the News

,0005(.006) 12.88(.29)*** .55(.34)** 374/21
4.75(.17)*** .23(. 13)** 621/21
N(Survey)/N(states)
'Parameter estimates are followed on a scale 2Affect is measured
.24(.13)** 462/21
ranging from 2 to 12. Overall information about the operationalization of the variables. is measured on a 3-point scale where the candidate is given a score of 3 if the candidate's commercials are rated as 3Relevance/Incivility and low on civility, the candidate is given a score of 2 if the commercials are rated as high on relevance and high on high on relevance is given a score of 1 if the commercials are rated as low on relevance. The Backlash Effect is measured with a civility, and the candidate candidates' commercials receive a score of 1 if these commercials are rated as low on relevance and binary variable where the sponsoring low on civility, and 0 for all other combinations of the sponsoring candidates' commercials.
P-values are based on one-tailed tests: ***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10. by standard errors in parentheses. on a scale ranging from 5 to 20. Issues are measured on a scale ranging from 4 to 12. Traits are measured evaluations are measured on a scale ranging from 0 to 10. See the text and Supporting Information for
coefficients (King 1989, 107-8).42 We want to estimate the average probability (i.e., 0 to 1.0) that people will
42The first differences will decrease campaign are estimates of the probability that citizens as the content and tone of
lower their evaluations of candidates' personal traits as the negative messages change in terms of relevance and civility. We turn first to an examination of the size of the effects when challengers attack incumbents.
While calculating 1989,108). are held at their means. the first differences,
assessments
of candidates
In
"a single unit messages change. equations value of change in X will have a different effect on the expected Y depending on the points at which the curve is evaluated" (King
In nonlinear
all other variables
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
particular, if challengers move from producing irrelevant commercials to producing relevant and civil commer cials, there is a .22 probability that citizens will decrease
their trait assessments of incumbents' personal traits. If
evaluations, proximity.
We turn
even controlling for party and ideological

now to our final analysis. Are the strong
challengers move from marketing relevant and civil com mercials to relevant and uncivil commercials, then voters have a .15 probability of decreasing their assessments of
the incumbents' incumbents' of the from personal traits. In comparison, a larger changes impact In particu and on in the commercials challengers' irrelevant have
effects of relevance and civility modified or altered by cit izens' tolerance of negative attacks? As discussed earlier, we expect that people with a low tolerance for uncivil and irrelevant messages will be more influenced by these
types of communications. The impact of these messages
will be greater simply because these individuals are more

sensitive tisements. to the content and tone of the negative adver
assessments lar, moving
personalities. commercials
to relevant
civil commercials produces a .25 probability that citizens will decrease evaluations of challengers' traits, and chang
To test whether tolerance for uncivil and irrelevant

messages influences the impact of negative messages, we
ing from relevant and civil commercials to relevant and uncivil messages produces another .25 probability that citizens will decrease their impressions of the challengers' personalities.43 Looking at the remaining variables in the models, the variable estimating "backlash" is statistically significant in three of the four incumbent equations. But, the backlash
combine the measures of tolerance for uncivil messages and tolerance for irrelevant messages into a single index, ranging from 4 to 16.45 We then divide our sample at the mean and reestimate the MLM/MLE equations presented in Table 3 for people low in tolerance of negative messages (Table 4) and for people high in tolerance of negative messages (Table 5).46 Turning first to Table 4, the top panel presents the
results panel for evaluations presents the of incumbents results for evaluations while the bottom of challengers.
variable does not reach statistical significance in any of the challenger models. These findings suggest negative campaigning by incumbents is risky.44While incumbents will be effective at depressing views of their challengers
as their commercials become more relevant and more
We are most interested in the strength, statistical signif icance, and direction of the parameter estimates for the measure tapping the relevance and civility of the nega tive advertisements. The relevance and civility variable is statistically significant in three of the four equations for incumbents and in four of the four equations for chal lengers. In addition, the sign of the relevance and civility
uncivil, incumbents who air irrelevant and uncivil adver tisements run the risks of offending potential supporters and hurting their own evaluations.
We also find that press criticisms significantly influ ence impressions of the incumbent in three of the four
equations. In contrast, the parameter estimates for press
because incumbents garner significantly more press cov

erage than challengers (Kahn and Kenney 1999; Westlye
criticisms never reach statistical significance in the four equations predicting evaluations of the challengers. Press criticisms are probably more powerful for incumbents
variable is in the hypothesized (negative) direction in each of the eight models in Table 4.
As in Table 3, the size of the parameter estimates for relevance and civility is larger in the challenger models, compared with the incumbent models. These results indi
cate that for people messages sensitive are to negative more damaging campaigning, than the incumbents' the chal
1991). Finally, and as expected, ideological and party prox imity have a substantial and consistent impact on impres
sions of incumbents and challengers. This is not surpris ing. What is impressive, however, is that the relevance and civility of advertising exert a strong impact on candidate
included a measure of posi the proportion assessing during the cam by the candidates analysis. We find that the proportion
lengers' messages. Also, consistent with the findings in Table 3, the backlash effect is evident for incumbents and not for challengers. In addition, the criticisms published in the newspaper damage evaluations of incumbents in
each of the four models, while failing to significantly affect impressions of challengers. Turning to Table 5, these analyses focus only on peo have a high score on the tolerance scale (i.e., who ple
43We also
tive advertisements
paigns, based of positive advertisements
produced on our content
(incumbent by a candidate produced of the does not significantly influence evaluations or challenger) The coefficient representing candidate. positive adver sponsoring in each of the eight equations tisements fails to influence evaluations presented 44Kahn in Table 3.
45The mean
tolerance
level is 7.0 on a scale ranging
from 4 to 16.
also find and Lau and Pomper and Kenney (2004) (2004) to a greater backlash effect for incumbents, challengers, compared for candidates running in U.S. Senate elections.
toward negative mes the sample by level of tolerance 46Dividing how for examining statistical procedure sages is an appropriate tolerance influences the impact of these negative messages on eval uations (see Brambor, Clark, and Golder 2005).
KIML.
FRIDKIN
MLM/MLE Relevance
Estimates Evaluations of U.S. Senate Candidates: The Impact of Predicting and Civility of Negative Commercials for People with Low Tolerance for Negative Campaigning1 Affect2
Traits Incumbents Issues Overall Evaluations
Fixed
Components Commercials3
Candidate
.28(.27) 1.00(.61)* ,70(.08)*** ,46(.08)*** .03(.02)* ,01(.004)*** 7.70(.20)***
.45(.27)** ,44(.62) ,83(.ll)*** 79(H)*** .02(.02) .01(.004)*** 14.36(.20)*** .24(.24) 293/21
.65(.25)*** ,77(.58)*
,37(.24)* 1.15(.53)** .77(.08)*** .62(.08)*** .03(.02)* ,01(.004)*** 5.22(.18)*** .22(. 18) 380/21
Proximity
,72(.08)*** ,53(.08)*** .02(.02) .007(.004)** 7.77(.19)*** .31(.18)** 345/21

Challengers

N (Survey) /N(States)
.38(.21)** 308/21
Fixed
Candidate
Relevance/Incivility Backlash Effect

Respondent Party Characteristics
.46(.33)* .55(.47) ,66(.08)*** ,39(.08)*** ,009(.02) ,004(.005) 7.68(.23)***
1.02(.45)*** .25(.67) ,75(.15)*** ,70(.15)*** .02(.03) .004(.007) 12.92(.34)*** .47(.53) 189/21
.97(.34)*** .36(.48) .56(.ll)*** .37(.ll)*** .03(.02)* ,003(.005) 7.24(.25)*** .25(.24) 228/21
.57(.30)** .12(.43) ,82(.08)*** .45(.08)*** .01 (.02) .003(.005) 4.92(.21)*** .27(.20)* 291/21
Proximity

N(Survey)/N(States)
'Parameter ranging estimates are followed on a scale 2Affect is measured operationalization
.38(.23)** 229./21
from 2 to 12. Overall
of the variables.
P-values are based on one-tailed tests: ***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10. by standard errors in parentheses. on a scale ranging from 5 to 20. Issues are measured on a scale ranging from 4 to 12. Traits are measured evaluations are measured on a scale ranging from 0 to 10. See the text and Supporting Information for a 3 if the candidate's commercials are rated as high on are rated as high on relevance and high on civility, and The Backlash Effect is measured with a binary variable are rated as low on relevance and low on civility,
is measured on a 3-point scale where the candidate is scored 3Relevance/Incivility relevance and low on civility, the candidate is given a score of 2 if the commercials the candidate is given a score of 1 if the commercials are rated as low on relevance. where the sponsoring candidates' and 0 for all other combinations commercials receive of the sponsoring candidates' commercials.
a score of 1 if these commercials
above the mean). For these individuals, we expect that the relevance and civility of the negative advertisements will only minimally influence their evaluations of the can didates. People with a high tolerance for negativity are less sensitive to negative information, and we do not expect
variations in the tone and content of negative messages to alter their impressions of the candidates. For evalua tions of incumbents (the top panel in Table 5), the rel evance and civility measure is statistically significant in only one of the models (i.e., overall evaluations). And, for
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
MLM/MLE Relevance Negative
Estimates and Civility Campaigning1
Evaluations of U.S. Senate Predicting for People of Negative Commercials
Candidates: with High
The Impact of Tolerance for
Affect2
Traits Incumbents
Issues
Overall
Evaluations
Fixed
Components Commercials3
Candidate
Relevance/Incivility Backlash Effect

Respondent Party Characteristics
.10(. 15) -.42(34) .13(.07)** .81(.06)*** ,02(.01)** ,006(.002)*** 7.62(.10)***
,21(,33) 1.46(.76)** .23(. 11)** 1 i2( ii)*** .06(.02)*** -.01(.004)**' 14.05(.25)*** ,38(.37) 298/21
Challengers
,24(.19) .19(.46)
.23(. 17)* . 10( .41) ,25(.08)*** ,93(.08)*** .03(.01)*** ,004(.003)* 5.14(. 13)*** .OOl(.OOl) 370/21
Proximity
17( 07)*** ,89(.07)*** ,05(.01)*** .003(.003) 7.58(. 15)*** .07(.12) 346/21

.OOl(.OOl) 301/21
N (Survey)/N(States)
Fixed
Candidate
.23(.22) .51 (.29)** ,36(.08)*** ,60(.07)*** ,01(.02) .0003(.003) 7.55(. 15)***
.39( .51) . 11 (.73) .67(.12)*** .91 (.12)*** ,007(.03) ,002(.008) 12.89(.36)*** ,91(.54)** 161/21
.17(.24) ,49(.30)* _41(_09)*** ,67(.09)*** ,03(.02)* ,003(.004) 7.23(.15)*** 14(. 12) 231/21
.23(.30) .08(.42) .41(.07)*** 67( 07)*** ,006(.02) .004(.004) 4.58(.20)*** .28(.19)* 290/21
Proximity

N (Survey)/N(States)
'Parameter ranging estimates are followed on a scale 2Affect is measured
,02(.10) 209/21
from 2 to 12. Overall
tests: ***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10. P-values are based on one-tailed by standard errors in parentheses. on a scale on a scale ranging from 5 to 20. Issues are measured ranging from 4 to 12. Traits are measured for Information are measured on a scale ranging from 0 to 10. See the text and Supporting evaluations
of the variables. operationalization commercials are rated as high on is scored a 3 if the candidate's is measured on a 3-point scale where the candidate 3Relevance/Incivility are rated as high on relevance and high on civility, and is given a score of 2 if the commercials relevance and low on civility, the candidate with a binary variable are rated as low on relevance. The Backlash Effect is measured is given a score of 1 if the commercials the candidate are rated as low on relevance and low on civility, receive a score of 1 if these commercials candidates' commercials where the sponsoring and 0 for all other combinations of the sponsoring candidates' commercials.
of challengers, the relevance and civility do not reach statistical significance in any of the four equa evaluations
tions.47
Finally, we expect that the magnitude of the rele vance and civility coefficients will be larger for people
with low tolerance (i.e., Table 4) than for people with high
is significant commercials and civility of the candidates' = .13, with a standard error of .03) for low-tolerance but the measure is not significant (estimate = .008, respondents, with a standard error of .03) for high-tolerance respondents. relevance (estimate
in Tables variables to the four dependent displayed the impact of the rele a model estimating 4-5, we also develop on vote choice for high- and vance and civility of the commercials find that the measure assessing the We low-tolerance respondents. 47In addition
KIM L. FRIDK1N
tolerance (i.e., Table 5). And, this is precisely the case. In eight of the eight models, the size of the relevance and civility coefficient is larger in the low-tolerance sample than in the high-tolerance sample. In fact, the differences are quite dramatic. In seven of the eight comparisons, the relevance and civility coefficients are over twice as large in the low-tolerance sample, compared with the high
tolerance sample.
Conclusion
Communication between citizens and candidates dur
ing political campaigns is an essential element of rep resentative democracies. A fundamental aspect of these discussions is for candidates to "make a case" for their candidacies. This involves disseminating a variety of messages, including biographical statements about the candidates, messages intended to build trust with con stituents, discussions about the candidates' political phi losophy, and statements describing the candidates' policy plans for solving contemporary problems. In addition, candidates need to explain why they will be better repre sentatives than their opponents. Candidates often deliver these messages by disseminating negative advertisements aimed at their rivals. This campaign strategy is extremely common tions. Although negative campaigning is common, demon strating the impact of negative campaigning has proven to be elusive. In this article, we introduce and test a more sophisticated theory of negative campaigning, exploring the conditions contributing to the effectiveness of neg
ative messages. In particular, we examine how the rele
The results presented in Tables 4 and 5 provide strong support for our hypothesis. The analyses, conducted across four different dependent variables and two sub populations, are consistent and impressive. People who do not like uncivil and irrelevant discourse in negative
communication the content and are tone more responsive to the variation These mes in of negative commercials.
sages directly influence their assessments of incumbents and challengers. This finding stands in stark contrast to
those in an people uncivil who are unperturbed and focused by messages on irrelevant presented content. manner
in the last days of statewide and national elec
For people with higher tolerance for negativity, the vari ance in the relevance and civility of messages has little influence on their evaluations of candidates running for
the U.S. Senate.48
vance and civility of negative messages influence citizens'

assessments of candidates. The data analyses focus on the
2006 U.S. Senate campaigns

ative messages centered on
and demonstrate that neg

topics relevant to governing
and disseminated
how partisanship and political sophisti of negative campaigning. For example, Fridkin and Kenney (2004) find that political novices are more af fected by negative political with political advertising, compared experts. We reestimate the analysis in Table 3 for political novices and political elites, and we find that novices are more responsive cation condition the impact to the variance vance/incivility in relevance coefficient 48Scholars have examined
shrill language) of candidates. Irrelevant messages, regardless of whether they are presented in a strident or civil manner, have little
impact on voters' views of the candidates. However, neg
in an uncivil manner (e.g., harsh or strongly influence citizens' evaluations
and civility. In particular, the rele is statistically significant in seven of the for novices, but it is statistically significant in only eight equations two of the eight tests for experts. However, we contend that toler ance toward negativity is something more than sophistication. As Table 2 shows, sophistication does not influence people's tolerance does signif negative messages. And, while sophistication icantly influence people's tolerance of irrelevant negative messages, it is not the most important variable, according to the standardized coefficients. the impact responsive and Iyengar Researchers of negative to negative have also found that partisanship affects advertising, with Independents being more than partisans appeals (e.g., Ansolabehere of uncivil
ative advertising is not without risk. When incumbents

stray away from relevant and messages uncivil and produce and dis react seminate irrelevant messages, citizens
by lowering their evaluations of these incumbents. Chal

lengers, from on the other potential voters. hand, do not face as fierce a backlash
We also demonstrate that not all citizens are equally influenced by negative campaigning. In particular, the impact of negative messages is especially strong for cit izens who have limited tolerance for "attack politics."
we compare weaker partisans However, messages. (Independents and leaners) and stronger partisans (strong and weak identifiers) in their responsiveness to the relevance and civility of negative mes sages and find no differences. In particular, six of the coefficients for relevance/civility are statistically significant for weaker parti for relevance/ for stronger civility are statistically partisans.
1997). In our analysis, because of the small number of it is difficult to examine whether Indepen (n =118), Independents dents are more responsive to the relevance and civility of negative
In contrast, for people with a high tolerance for rough and-tumble campaign rhetoric, negative messages are less influential. All told, the evidence suggests that the effect of neg ative information on targeted politicians is not minimal. Rather, the effects are multifaceted, and under some cir cumstances, substantial. These effects hold up in the face of stiffcontrols for partisan and ideological attachments.
sans and six of the coefficients significant
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
In addition, we have identified these effects in real cam paigns. While

of negative messagesmay
Basil,
the present article focuses on evaluations of candidates, we think that the relevance and civility
messagesand also people's to tolerance the resolution for these of the contribute
1991. Reeves. Caroline and Byron Schooler, Effectiveness of Ads and and Negative Advertising: In Television and Political Ad of Candidates." Perceptions Michael, "Positive vertising: Psychological Erlbaum, NJ: Lawrence Processes, 245-62. ed. Frank Biocca. Hillsdale,
Brader,
Ted.
2006. Ads
Political University
effect of ongoing debate regarding the (de)mobilizing negative campaigning. Embracing the variance in the con tent and tone of messages may help explain whether nega
enhance or depress turnout. We expect tive messages that
and MindsHow Campaigning for Hearts to Sway the Electorate. Emotion Chicago: Press. of Chicago Use
Sara J. Falla, and Lucy R. Brendan P., Karin Mogg, Bradley, Facial Ex Bias for Threatening 1998. "Attentional Hamilton. of Stimulus Duration." in Anxiety: Manipulation pressions Cognition Brambor, 2005. and Emotion William 12: 737-53. Roberts Interaction Clark, Models: and Matt Golder. Em
not all negative messages will demobilize citizens. Instead, messages focusing on irrelevant materialand presented in an uncivil mannermay be the most likely type of
message to "turn off' voters. In contrast, messages focus
Thomas,
pirical Analysis." Political Analysis 14: 63-82.

Brooks, and Brooks, Deborah Closure Turnout." Deborah The Jordan. 2006. "The over Resilient Toward in the Debate The Journal Jordan,
"Understanding
Improving Voter:
Moving
ing on relevant topics and presented in a civil manner may actually engage citizens and increase participation.
Campaigning Negative of Politics 68: 684-96.
In addition, we expect that the impact of these different messages will depend on people's tolerance for negative campaigning. In particular, irrelevant and uncivil mes
sages may be more effective at depressing turnout among
ativity: Journal Campbell, Donald Canli,
and John G. Geer. 2007. "Beyond Neg American Effects of Incivility on the Electorate." of Political Science 51: 1-16. Angus, Stokes. Zuo and E. Converse, Philip 1960. The American Zhao, John John D. E. Warren E. Miller, and Voter. New Desmond, 2001. York: Wiley. Kang,
people with little tolerance for negative rhetoric. We en courage researchers to consider the variability in the con
Turhan, Gross,
James
Gabrieli.
Eunjoo "An MRI
tent and tone of negative messages when exploring how negative campaigning affects turnout. We believe that this article advances our understand ing of negative campaigning by embracing the variability in the content and tone of negative messages as well as the variance in people's tolerance for negative messages.
However, this article represents a first step. Future work
on Brain Reactivity Influences of Personality Neuroscience 115: 33-42. Behavioral Stimuli." Chang, Chingching. Darren 2003. "Party Bias
Study to Emotional
Processing." Dahl, chanda. and 2003.
Journal W., Kristina "Does
of Advertising
in Political-Advertising 32: 55-67.
Nonshocking Students." Journal Ellermeier,
and Rajesh V. Man D. Frankenberger, to Shocking It Pay to Shock? Reactions Content University among Advertising Research 43: 268-81.
of Advertising
should explore variance in additional dimensions of cam paign rhetoric, such as variance in the medium (e.g., In ternet vs. television advertising), variance in the timing
1995. "Gender and Wolfgang Westphal. Wolfgang, to Painful and Pupil Reactions in Pain Ratings Differences Pain 61: 435-39. Pressure Stimuli." Richard. 1996. Senators on the Campaign University Trail: The
of the negative messages (e.g., early vs. late in the cam paign), variance in the presence of a counterattack (e.g., how often, how fierce), and variance in the repetition of
the message (e.g., how many repeated attacks before effec
Fenno, Press. Fiske,
Politics
of Representation.
Norman:
of Oklahoma
tiveness is detected). We believe that all of these avenues will shed more light on how negative messages shape cit izens' attitudes and, ultimately, their choices at the ballot
box.
and Weight in Person Susan T. 1980. "Attention and Extreme Behavior." tion: The Impact of Negative 38: 889-906. and Social Psychology of Personality Michael M., Paul B. Freedman, 2008. Campaign Temple Kenneth M. and Travis N. Ridout. Advertising University
Percep Journal
Franz,
Goldstein, and Amer Press.
ican Democracy. Fridkin,
Philadelphia:
References
Abbe, Owen G., Paul 2001. S. Herrnson, "Are Professional Saddle David and Kelly B. Magleby, More Nega Campaigns River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
"Do 2004. Kim L., and Patrick J. Kenney. Negative Eval on Citizens' Work? The Impact of Negativity Messages Politics Research 32: 570 American of Candidates." uations 605. "The Dimen 36:
Fridkin, sions
Kim
L., and
Patrick Messages."
Peterson. ed. Paul
tive?"In PlayingHardball: Campaigningforthe U.S. Congress,

S. Herrnson.
694-723.
Geer, idential
of Negative
J. Kenney. American
2008. Politics
Research
70-91.
Abramowitz, comes." Ansolabehere, ative: How Electorate. Alan American Stephen, Negative New York:
Upper
John G. 2006. Campaigns. Women's Press.
In Defense Chicago:
of Negativity: University
Attack Ads in Pres of Chicago MA: Press.
I. 1988. Political and The
Election Senate "Explaining Science Review 82: 385-403. Shanto 1997. Iyengar. Shrink and
Out
The Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a DifferentVoice: Psychological

ory and University Grose, ers: Images, Development. Suzanne Citizen Cambridge, Globetti. Vote 2007. Choice Harvard
Advertisements
Going Neg the Polarize
Christian
R., and Issues
"Valence in U.S.
Vot Senate
Free Press.
and
KIM L. FRIDKIN
AND PATRICK
J. KENNEY
Elections." Political Guttman,
Presented Science
at the annual
meeting
of the Midwest
Lind,
Allan
E., Yuen for All:
J. Huo,
and
Tom and
Association. In Ian
Justice
of Democracy." 1993. "The Disharmony Amy. ed. W. and Democratic John Chapman Community, New York: New York University Press, 411-21. Shapiro.
pute Resolution 269-90. Luke, CA: McGraw, in the dates." Douglas Sage. Kathleen Head:
Gender, Ethnicity, Law Procedures."
R. Tyler. 1994. "And Preferences for Dis Behavior 18:
and Human
A. 2004.
Multilevel
Modeling.
Thousand
Oaks,
Hill, Seth J., James Lo, Lynn Vavreck, and John Zaller. 2007. "The Methodology Opt-in Internet Panel: Survey Mode, Sampling of and the Implications for Political Research." University California, Houston, Up?" Jacobson, New Jamieson, David Media Los Angeles. A., and Unpublished paper. "Can You Back That 1999. Kelly Doan. 1: 191-206. Psychology The Politics
M., and Marco
Representation Memory In Political Judgment: Structure
1997. "Pictures Steenbergen. of Political Candi and Process, ed. Mil Ann Arbor:
ton Lodge and Kathleen M. McGraw. of Michigan Press, 15-42. McGuire, Some
University
Gary. 2009. York: Longman. Kathleen Hall,
of Congressional and Susan
Elections.
Paul Waldman,
Sherr.
2000.
Resistance to Persuasion: William J. 1964. "Inducing In Advances in Experi Approaches." Contemporary Berkowitz. New mental Social Psychology, Vol. 1, ed. Leonard Press, J. 1976. 191-229. "Some Internal Fac Psychological of Consumer of Cam E. 43 William
for Political the Negative? of Analysis Categories Advertisements." In Crowded Airwaves: Advertis Campaign ed. James A. Thurber, Candice J. Nelson, ing in Elections, "Eliminate and David Press, Kahn, A. Dulio. Washington, Patrick DC: Brookings Institution 44-64. Fridkin, and 1999. "Do Negative J. Kenney. the or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying and Participation." Ameri Negativity 93: 877-90. J. Kenney. Campaigns. 1979. 2004. No Holds Saddle Patrick Senate Hall. Tversky. under Risk." "Prospect Econometrica The 47:
York: Academic McGuire,
tors Influencing Consumer Research 2: 302-19. McGuire, William J. 1989.
Choice."
Journal
"Theoretical
Foundations CA:
Kim
Campaigns Relationship can Political Kahn, Kim
Mobilize between Science
In Public paigns." Rice and Charles 65.
Communication K. Atkin.
Campaigns, Thousand Oaks,
ed. Ronald Sage, and
Review and
Fridkin,
Michael Meyer, Wulf-Uwe, Schutzwohl. 1991. "An Cognition Min, Young. and 2004. An Emotion "News
Niepel,
Udo
Rudolph, Analysis
Achim
Barred: River, Kahneman,
Negativity NJ: Pearson Daniel,
in U.S. Prentice and Amos
Upper
Experimental 5: 295-311.
of Surprise."
ory: An Analysis 263-91.
of Decision
paigns: Turnout Journal Mutz, Diana
Experiment and Candidate
of Negative Political Cam Coverage of Negative Effects on Campaign Preference." Harvard International 9: 95-111. Video Trust."
of Press/Politics C., and Effects Political Kimberly Oaks,
and Marion Kern, Montague, Just. 1997. "A Gender Gap among In Women, Media, Viewers?" and Politics, ed. Pippa Norris. New Kinder, York: Donald Oxford University ed. Richard Erlbaum, Press, 99-112. Character R. Lau and 233-56. and Politics in the Revisited." David O. In R. 1986. "Presidential
malaise: American Neuendorf, Thousand O'Keefe, sand Perloff,
2005. "The New Byron Reeves. of Televised on Political Incivility Science A. 2002. CA: Sage. Persuasion Theory and Research. Review 99: 1-16. Analysis The Content
Guidebook.
Political Hillsdale, Kinder, Age
Cognition, NJ: Lawrence R., 2003.
Sears.
Daniel Oaks, Richard
J. 2002. CA: M. Sage.
Thou
Donald
"Communication
of Information." In Oxford Handbook of Political Psy chology, ed. David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis. New York: Oxford University Press, 357-93.
2003.
The
munication Lawrence
and Attitudes Erlbaum.
Com Dynamics of Persuasion: in the 21st Century. Hillsdale, NJ: 1986. Berkowitz. "The Elabora in Social FL:
King, Gary. 1989. UnifyingPolitical Methodology: The Likeli

hood Theory of Michigan Lau, Richard. Behavior Lau, Richard, paigning Lau, Richard of Statistical Press. Inference. in Person Ann Arbor: University Political
E., and John T. Cacioppo. Petty, Richard tion Likelihood Model of Persuasion." Psychology, Volume 19, ed. Leonard Academic Press, 123-205. Rivers,
In Advances
Orlando,
"Negativity 4: 353-77. and by U.S. Gerald Senate M.
1982.
Perception." 2001.
Pomper. Candidates."
Cam "Negative Party Politics 7:69-87. Negative Lanham, Campaign MD: Row
Sampling
n.d. Douglas, "Sample Representative Matching: from Internet Panels." Unpublished paper: and Gina M. Garramone. 1988.
www.polimetrix.com. Roddy, and Brian L., "Appeals Journal of of Negative and Electronic Lipsitz, and Political Media
R., and Gerald
ing: An Analysis of U.S. man and Littlefield. Lau, Richard R., and Annual R., Lee 1999.
2004. Pomper. Senate Elections.
Strategies
Broadcasting 2009. Science Cam "Negative 12: 285-306. and Paul Sides, Voters paigns?"
Advertising." 32:415-27. Grossman. 38: 502-30.
paigning." Lau, Richard Babbitt. ments:
Ivy Brown Rovner. Review of Political Caroline
John, Keena Perceive
Matthew
2010.
"Do Cam
Sigelman, "The Effects
Heldman,
Negative Campaigns American Politics Research.
as Informative
A Meta-Analytic ence Review 93: 851-76. Richard "The R., Lee
of Negative Political Advertise Assessment." American Political Sci
Lau,
2007.
Effects
Meta-Analytic 1176-1209.
and Rovner. Sigelman, Ivy Brown of Negative Political A Campaigns: Reassessment." The Journal 69: of Politics
2003. on Lee, and Mark Kugler. Sigelman, "Why Is Research the Effects of Negative So Inconclusive? Un Campaigning Citizens' of Negativity." Journal of derstanding Perceptions Politics 65: 142-60. Steenbergen, Multi-level Science Marco, Data and Bradford Jones. 2002. Journal "Modeling of Political
Structures."
American
46:218-37.
NEGATIVE
CAMPAIGNING
Taylor,
typing."
to Stereo Approach Shelly E. 1981. "A Categorization In Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup ed. David L. Hamilton. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Behavior, 83-114. Ira. in 2008. "Study: Obama Race." Gains on Mc
Ulbig, Stacy G., and ance and Political 82. West, tial ous Darrell Years." M.
Carolyn
L. Funk.
1999.
"Conflict Behavior
Avoid 21: 265
Participation." "A
Political
Erlbaum, Teinowitz, Cain
2010. Ads:
Nomination
Report Ads More Institution.
on
the
2008
Presiden Previ
Negative
Than
Negative-Ad
http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article October 10, 2008). (accessed Thorson, "Selling Esther, William Candidates G. Christ, Like Tubes
Age. Advertising Jd= 132167
Brookings
http://www.brookings. (accessed
edu/papers/2008/0630_campaignads_west.aspx. March 2, 2010). Westlye, Mark Baltimore: C. 1991. Senate Elections University and Campaign Press.
Apt?" In Television parison ed. Frank Biocca. Hillsdale, Thurber, James A., and
1991. and Clarke Caywood. Is the Com of Toothpaste: Vol. 1, and Political Advertising, Erlbaum, 2000. 145-72. J. Nelson. in Elections.
Intensity. "Candi Political
Johns Hopkins
NJ: Lawrence
Candice
Warriors: Brookings
Political Institute.
Consultants
Campaign DC: Washington,
1986. C., Jr., and Mark B. Berkman. Wright, Gerald American dates and Policy in U.S. Senate Elections." Science Review 80: 567-90. Zaller, New John. York: 1992. The Nature and Origins Press. of Mass
Opinion.
Cambridge
University

Midwest Political Science Association

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Midwest Political Science Association

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Variability in Citizens' Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns Author(s): Kim L. Fridkin and Patrick J.

Variability in Citizens' Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns

advertisements the variance political rhetoric.

lower voters' in the content We employ in U.S.

evaluations and data Senate

of the targeted the 2006

that there is much

to be gained sensitivity the races

by examining to negative impact featuring evidence

tone of negative from

the variance Election

Congressional 1,045 respondents

to investigate Senate data

and challenger. the campaigns

to the survey data, and under

the news coverage

of these campaigns some

in state newspapers. substantial.

that the impact and relevant

find that uncivil political

are the most powerful,

with less tolerance

that the millions of dollars spent on negative

the proposition that attacking is an effective way to bol

Pat Crittenden this article

appeared American 2011,

Elections." Pp. 307-325 DOI: 10.1111/j.l540-5907.2010.00494.x

Vol. 55, No. 2, April 2011,

AND PATRICK J. KENNEY

governing" in the political realm. We define "relevance"

3Petty and message message 4We

that the relevance

significantly influences (see also O'Keefe 2002; that issues and

people's willingness Perloff 2003). be relevant

sages by distinguishing candidate's personality

whether they are civil or uncivilshould impressions of a targeted candidate.

and civility, we think that citizens' tolerance of negative

decency, good taste, and personal moral standards, the

and (in)civility of negative

Relevant and civil messages should produce more mod

influenced by such messages. Therefore, the impact of

AND PATRICK J. KENNEY

tions for 1,000 citizens. In addition, these respondents

advertisement samples. With this additional

our sample open races

susceptible suggest that

was 7.2, with a minimum the completeness

ing Election Day. In contrast, in some Senate campaigns,

ing the political advertisements, we assessed a variety of

cluding the civility of each commercial, the relevance of

ance for irrelevant and uncivil messages. Consequently, in

October 1 to Election Day. We coded 2,077 news articles

assessed a variety of factors associated

with the tone of

of criticisms published about each candidate.13

of commercials during the 2006

Unfortunately, campaigns. often or where the ads were shown

we do not have access

during to how The To

Relevance and Civility in Negative

distinguished between messages that were relevant and

mercials classified as relevant by coders contained the fol

perience. advertisement relevant,

,03(.01)* ,03(.01)* ,005(.008) ,04(.02)**

,001(.0007)* 1.84(.09)* .05(.01) 482/21