Do Negative Campaign Ads Influence Campaigns Negatively?

By Sarah Spalding

“Unfit.” “Liberal mob.” “Conservative alt right.” This election cycle and in innumerable ones past, registered and unregistered citizens eligible to vote are bombarded by this type of cacophonous rhetoric in the mail. In addition, nearly every commercial break during local broadcasts features a monochromatic “worst of” highlight reel of a candidate while a robust voice espouses fear-mongering buzzwords.

Immediately following, a brightly colored screen and positively intoned voice promotes the very same candidate, only serving to further confuse the voter on what each candidate’s stance truly is. “How can a candidate say one issue is important, but their opponent has a clip of them espousing the opposite?” “Which side is telling the truth?” A well-discerning voter may often find these questions running through their head. This begs a second question: do negative campaigns influence campaigns negatively? This answer is almost as double sides as the essence of the question: it depends.

In a world where elections have become more media driven, it’s unsurprising that negative campaign advertising has only continued to rise. During the 1960s, only 10% of all televised campaign advertisements were negative. In a massive turn of events, only 14.3% of ads in 2012 could be considered positive. A 2014 study found that when they surveyed voters and used the term “negative campaigning” in a question about that form of advertising, 55% of the respondents strongly agreed that this type of campaigning was unethical. In contrast, the group that received the same question, but the words “negative campaigning” were excluded responded positively overall. Surprisingly, the most common response was that the ad made them feel “not at all angry.” Essentially, this data tells us that if voters aren’t actively recognizing an ad as negative, they may not find the purveyor of the ad to be producing anything reprehensible.

Negative campaign advertising has been found to be effective in terms of influencing voter preference, as well as turnout at the polls. That information does  not come without qualifiers. Negative advertising can be extremely powerful for voters, but part of that power depends on who is espousing it. One commonly hears the phrase “paid for by the ____ for ____,” if one listens to the end of an attack ad or reads the fine print of a shiny flyer pulled from the mailbox. The data shows that the ads produced by Political Action Committees (PACs) was largely ineffective on voter psyche. Adversely, negative ads produced by the candidates themselves actually had a positive effect on how voters made decisions. This is due to how voters may view the credibility of the information being doled out. However, while the aforementioned study looked at for whom voters polled, another found that negative campaigns can actually affect whether or not citizens vote at all. Self-identified Republicans and Independents viewed negative advertisements as persuasive, yet they decrease overall voter turnout. This is especially polarizing for independents, who due to a less partisan allegiance, are already less likely to vote.

In the end, negative campaign advertising does not appear to have the negative impact on the public that one may imagine. Its effectiveness ultimately hinges on who is producing it and what their political affiliation may be. This leads to the ultimate conclusion that for some candidates, a negative ad may mean a positive result.