Little comparative evidence exists about what causes candidates to use negative campaigning in elections. We introduce an original comparative data set that contains experts’ information about campaigning strategies of 172 candidates competing in 35 national elections worldwide between June 2016 and May 2017. Analyses reveal several trends: incumbents run positive campaigns but are especially likely to attract attacks, candidates far from the ideological centre are more likely to ‘go negative’, candidates tend to attack frontrunners and rivals that are far from them ideologically, but they also engage in a logic of attack reciprocity with selected candidates. The comparative nature of the data also allows us to test whether variations in the context affect the use of campaign negativity; we find that the context matters mostly indirectly, by altering the effects of individual characteristics.

75 national and international experts in US politics evaluated the personality reputation of Trump and Clinton. They evaluated Clinton as average on extraversion, agreeableness, openness, narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, but high on conscientiousness and emotional stability. Trump was rated very low on agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability, average on openness, and very high on extraversion and the Dark Triad. Results are consistent with previous research based on ratings from psychology scholars. Experts also evaluated their campaign style. Trump campaign was seen as populist, negative, and based on fear appeals. Clinton was also evaluated as high in negativity but using a less populist rhetoric and making an average use of emotional appeals. Perceived campaign style of Trump and ClintonNo unified framework exists for the study of the campaign style of candidates. We focus here on their use of populist rhetoric, negative campaigning, and emotional (fear, feel-good) appeals.First, two elements are associated with "populist" communication: people-centrism and anti-elitism (Mudde, 2004). People-centrist

Populists are often described as using a more aggressive, offensive, and anxiety-fuelled rhetoric than non-populists. Yet, little systematic evidence exists that this is the case. This article presents the first large-scale systematic study comparing the communication style of populists and non-populists worldwide, and introduces an original dataset based on expert ratings. The dataset contains systematic information for 195 candidates having competed in 40 national elections worldwide between June 2016 and June 2017. Results highlight that, controlling for "usual suspects" that drive negativity and emotional campaigns, populist campaigns are 15% more negative and contain 11% more character attacks and 8% more fear messages than campaigns of non-populist candidates.

Scholars pay increasing attention to the personality of candidates. However, systematic and comparative data across different countries and electoral systems are virtually inexistent. I introduce here a new dataset with information about the personality of 124 candidates having competed 57 elections worldwide. I describe the candidates' personality in terms of two sets of traits which provide a comprehensive representation of adult personality: the "socially desirable" traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness ("Big Five"), and the "socially malevolent" traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism ("Dark Triad"). Beyond introducing these measures, and testing their validity and reliability, I present three sets of analyses suggesting that these variables are also relevant. My findings suggest several trends: (1) concerning the profile of candidates, populists score significantly lower in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, but higher in perceived extraversion, narcissism, and psychopathy than "mainstream" candidates; (2) looking at the content of their campaigns, candidates high in agreeableness and openness tend to be associated with campaigns that are less negative and harsh, but more based on positively valenced appeals. At the same time, extroverted tend to be associated more with character attacks. Finally, (3) looking at electoral success, high conscientiousness and openness seem associated with better results during the election, whereas extraversion could be counterproductive.

The 'populist phenomenon' has received a lot of attention in recent years. Yet little is known about the populists themselves: who are they? They are often described as bad-mannered provocateurs disrupting the political game, but also as charismatic leaders able to persuade and motivate. Can a populist 'style' or 'personality' be identified? This article assesses to what extent populists score differently from 'mainstream' politicians on established personality inventories. Using a new dataset based on expert ratings for 152 candidates (including 33 populists) having competed in 73 elections worldwide, it is found that populists score lower on agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness. At the same time, populists score higher on extraversion, narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. These results have important implications for the study of the success of populists in contemporary democracies and beyond.