Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:13:16.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Martin P. Wattenberg
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Craig Leonard Brians
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech

Abstract

As political campaigns become increasingly adversarial, scholars are giving some much-needed attention to the effect of negative advertising on turnout. In a widely recognized Review article and subsequent book, Ansolabehere and his colleagues (1994, 1995) contend that attack advertising drives potential voters away from the polls. We dispute the generalizability of this claim outside the experimental setting. Using NES survey data as well as aggregate sources, we subject their research to rigorous real-world testing. The survey data directly contradict their findings, yielding no evidence of a turnout disadvantage for those who recollected negative presidential campaign advertising. In attempting to replicate Ansolabehere et al.'s earlier aggregate results we uncover quite substantial discrepancies and inconsistencies in their data set. We conclude that their aggregate study is deeply flawed and that Ansolabehere et al. exaggerated the demobilization dangers posed by attack advertising, at least in voters' own context.

Type
Forum
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, Adam, and Valentino, Nicholas. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?American Political Science Review 88 (December): 829–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 1996. “Book Review of ‘Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate.’Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (Fall): 456–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brians, Craig Leonard, and Wattenberg, Martin P. 1996. “Campaign Issue Knowledge and Salience: Comparing Reception from TV Commercials, TV News, and Newspapers.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (February): 172–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus. 1960. “Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change.” Public Opinion Quarterly 24 (Fall): 397418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Clinger, James H. 1987. “The Clean Campaign Act of 1985: A Rational Solution to Negative Campaign Advertising Which the One Hundredth Congress Should Reconsider.” Journal of Law and Politics 3:727–48.Google Scholar
Federal Election Commission. 1993. Federal Elections 92: Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Federal Election Commission (June).Google Scholar
Federal Election Commission. 1996. National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–1996. http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm (accessed March 23, 1999).Google Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Cappella, Joseph N. 1996. “Bridging the Disciplinary Divide.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (March): 13–7.Google Scholar
McCullough, David G. 1992. Truman. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Milburn, Michael A., and Brown, Justin. 1995. “Busted by the Ad Police: Journalists' Coverage of Political Campaign Ads in the 1992 Presidential Campaign.” Research Paper R-15, Joan Shorenstein Center, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., Kinder, Donald R., Rosenstone, Steven J., and the National Election Studies. 1993. American National Election Study, 1992: Pre- and Post-Election Survey [computer file] (Study #6067). Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies/Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
Newspaper Association of America. 1998. Newspaper Circulation Volume. http://www.naa.org/marketscope/databank/circvol.htm (accessed March 23, 1999).Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E., and McClure, Robert D. 1976. The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Politics. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (August): 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., and the National Election Studies. 1997. American National Election Study, 1996: Pre- and Post-Election Survey [computer file] (Study #6896). Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies/Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
Teixeira, Ruy A. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1991. The Rise of Candidate Centered Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1996. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P., McAllister, Ian, and Salvanto, Anthony. N.d. “How Voting Is Like Taking an SAT Test: An Analysis of American Voter Rolloff.” American Politics Quarterly. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
West, Darrell M. 1997. Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952–1996. 2d ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.