Effects of Negative Political Advertising and Message Repetition on Candidate Evaluation

Fernandes, Juliana Gomes

doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.672615

Cited by 25 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This assumption is supported by research in social and cognitive psychology (Cacioppo and Petty 1979) and consumer advertisement (Anand and Sternthal 1990;Yaveroglu and Donthu 2008), and might come from the fact that repeated messages are perceived as more valid, and thus imbued with a stronger persuasive effect (Moons, Mackie, and Garcia-Marques 2009). 2 In the field of (negative) political advertisement several studies also highlight that when respondents are repeatedly exposed to messages with the same valence the effects of such messages increases (Dardis, Shen, and Edwards 2008;Fernandes 2013;Schenck-Hamlin, Procter, and Rumsey 2000).…”

Section: Volume Effects Of Positive and Negative Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If research on political advertising has fully embraced the study of volume and valence (e.g., Dardis, Shen, and Edwards 2008;Fernandes 2013;Shapiro and Rieger 1992;Stevens 2009), surprisingly little is known today about how different sequences of negative and positive messages affect evaluations of those exposed to them. However, assessing the effects of messages sequences has much to contribute to our knowledge of electoral dynamics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Nai

Seeberg

2018

Journal of Marketing Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Volume Effects Of Positive and Negative Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Nai

Seeberg

2018

Journal of Marketing Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is not, of course, the final word. Future research might want to determine, for example, whether the moderating role of ambivalence varies with the repetition of ads (Fernandes 2013); their timing (Chong and Druckman 2013;Gerber et al 2011;Hill et al 2013;Bartels 2014); the degree to which they receive earned media coverage (Ridout and Smith 2008) or are judged by the media to be accurate (Fridkin, Kenney, and Wintersieck 2015); candidate vs. party vs. external sponsorship (Brooks and Murov 2012;Weber, Dunaway, and Johnson 2012;Dowling and Wichowsky 2015); variations in context (Keele and Wolak 2008;Klar 2014;Johnson 2014); and the specific type of ads being examined (e.g., positive rather than negative, policy-rather than performance-based; see Craig and Cossette 2018). For now, however, the jury remains out.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making

Craig

Cossette

Martinez

2020

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American politics today is driven largely by deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. That said, there are many people who view the opposition in an overwhelmingly negative light – but who simultaneously possess a mix of positive and negative feelings toward their own party. This paper is a response to prior research (e.g., Lavine, Johnson, and Steenbergen 2012) indicating that such ambivalence increases the probability that voters will engage in "deliberative" (or "effortful") rather than "heuristic" thinking when responding to the choices presented to them in political campaigns. We extend the logic of this argument to a hypothetical race for Congress, using data from a survey experiment to determine whether a high degree of ambivalence toward one's party makes voters more responsive to a negative attack against the candidate of that party. In fact, we find little evidence that partisan ambivalence promotes a deliberative response to negative campaign ads.

show abstract

“…Baden & Lecheler, 2012;Slothuus, 2008). 1 Research in persuasion has shown that repetition indeed leads to increased agreement with a persuasive message, specifically if repetitions are spaced over longer periods of time (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979;Fernandes, 2013;Gorn & Goldberg, 1980;Stephens & Rains, 2011). We thus first hypothesize that, if an individual is repeatedly exposed to the same news frame, framing effects will get stronger over time (H1; strength hypothesis).…”

Section: Repetitive News Framing 341mentioning

confidence: 93%