A series of persuasive events. Sequencing effects of negative and positive messages on party evaluations and perceptions of negativity

Abstract

We test how party evaluations and perceptions of negativity are affected by sequences of positive/negative persuasive messages. In an experimental survey collected in Denmark, respondents were exposed to either a positive or a negative message on three issues in a random order; this creates a setting where we can test for the effects of eight different sequences of positive and/or negative messages. We find consistent effects. Being exposed to a higher volume of negative messages often depresses evaluations of the target, whereas being exposed to a higher volume of positive messages enhances evaluation of the sponsor. These effects are nuanced by recency effects: when a sequence ends on a negative message, regardless of its overall valence, evaluation of the target is depressed; similarly, negatively valenced sequences harm the target except when the sequence ends on a positive message. Backlash effects are unlikely, and no sequence simultaneously harms the target and promotes a positive evaluation of the sponsor. Finally, negatively valenced sequences of messages enhance perceptions of negativity, whereas positively valenced sequences do not reduce it; this trend is also nuanced by recency effects.© 2018 the author(s). Published by informa uk limited, trading as taylor & francis group. this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution-nonCommercial-noDerivatives license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

Negativity, emotionality and populist rhetoric in election campaigns worldwide, and their effects on media attention and electoral success

“…Scholars disagree about the extent to which negative campaigning ‘works’ (Lau et al, 2007); if several studies show that negativity reduce positive feelings for the target and overall harm its image in the eyes of the voters (Pinkleton, 1997; Shen and Wu, 2002), others highlight that negative messages are ‘a two-edged sword that can sometimes cut the sponsor more than the target’ (Shapiro and Rieger, 1992: 135). Several studies have found that negative campaigning has unintentional systemic effects, for instance, in depressing turnout and mobilization (Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1995) or in fostering cynicism, apathy and a gloomier public mood (Yoon et al, 2005; Nai and Seeberg, 2018); others see in negative campaigning the potential to increase citizens attention and mobilize them (Geer, 2006). A more nuanced approach tends to differentiate between policy and character attacks.…”

Fear and Loathing in Populist Campaigns? Comparing the Communication Style of Populists and Non-populists in Elections Worldwide

“…Systemic effects are also likely, as evidence exists that the "offensive" campaigning style of populists might depress interest and participation of some segments of the population (Immerzeel and Pickup 2015). More broadly, more harsh and aggressive forms of electoral communication have been linked with systemic increases in cynicism and disaffection with politics (Nai and Seeberg 2018), off which populist movements seem to feed. Beyond electoral outcomes, the typical rhetorical style of populists and their proverbial "bad manners" participate to the mediatization of politics and are a perfect fit for the tendency of media toward "dramatization, polarisation, and prioritisation of conflict" (Moffitt 2016: 77).…”

“…Under specific conditions, negative messages have the power to reduce support for the target; reverse effects have also been shown (especially for character attacks, Carraro and Castelli 2010), but the potential of reshuffling the cards on the table and alter electoral outcomes is very real for negative campaign, either in favor of the attacker or the target (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner 2007;Fridkin and Kenney 2012). Beyond electoral outcomes, negative and fear-fuelled campaigns have also been seen as detrimental forces in modern democracies, fostering depressed turnout, cynicism, apathy, and a gloomier public mood (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995;Thorson et al 2000;Yoon, Pinkleton, and Ko 2005;Nai and Seeberg 2018). Other scholars point to opposite effects, and show that negativity can act as a cue to pay attention and get involved in the political game; this has the potential to foster interest and, ultimately, increases turnout and mobilization (Martin 2004;Geer 2006).…”

The impact of using negative versus positive Karma framing in donation appeals at grocery checkouts on the facilitating store's outcomes

“…In particular, moods can not only have an informational impact on consumer judgments, but also a directive impact on their behaviors (Gendolla, 2000). Therefore, it is proposed that using a negative (vs. positive) Karma connotation in the donation appeal at the store checkout will reduce consumers' purchase satisfaction at the store as well as their intentions to revisit the store in the future based on its negative effect on the consumers' overall mood (Gardner, 1985; Gendolla, 2000; Janakiraman, Meyer, & Morales, 2006; Nai & Seeberg, 2018). Formally stated:Hypothesis Using a negative (vs. positive) Karma connotation in donation appeals at grocery checkouts lowers consumers ' purchase satisfaction and store revisit intentions . Hypothesis Consumer mood mediates the effect of using a negative (vs. positive) Karma connotation in donation appeals at grocery checkouts on consumers ' purchase satisfaction and revisit intentions .…”