Negative political advertising and choice conflict.

Abstract

It has been argued that competing political campaigns should be evaluated in tandem because of synergies between them. In 2 experiments, participants received biographical information about 2 candidates followed by 6 ads from the candidates' campaigns. Candidates engaged in either a positive (i.e., focus on the positives of the candidate) or a negative (i.e., focus on the negatives of the candidate's opponent) campaign. As predicted, competing positive campaigns produced relatively high evaluations of both candidates, whereas competing negative campaigns produced relatively low evaluations (consistent with the creation of approach-approach and avoidanceavoidance conflicts, respectively). For a synergistic interpretation, a candidate sharing a participant's ideology was denigrated for using a negative campaign only when their opponent also was negative, whereas the opposing ideology candidate was bolstered by using a positive campaign only when the shared ideology candidate was also positive.An important domain for the study of judgment and choice involves the selection between candidates for political office. This domain is particularly interesting for a variety of reasons. The American two-party system effectively ensures that most elections in this country are dichotomous choices, with few or no practical alternatives to the candidates presented by the two major parties. As a result, individuals are presented with a situation in which they can seek out few, if any, effective alternatives to the two initially presented (whereas, for example, in purchasing a new car, a person can usually seek out several additional choice alternatives). Further, in contemporary American political choice, the alternatives (the candidates) have their presentations to decision makers (the voters) molded, not only by their own campaign strategies, but also by the campaign strategies of their opponents.

The Agony of Ambivalence and Ways to Resolve It: Introducing the MAID Model

“…The latter choices are very difficult and are experienced as being psychologically unpleasant (Houston, Sherman, & Baker, 1991). Houston, Doan, and Roskos-Ewoldsen (1999) gave an illustration what these effects can lead to. They presented a study in which they show that negative campaigning in presidential elections-that is, where candidates mainly speak in unfavorable terms about their opponents-may lead to voters' experiencing an avoidance-avoidance conflict, which can in turn lead to a lower turnout on Election Day.…”

Replicating Experiments Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout

“…Their findings? Exposure to negative advertising creates an "avoidance" set among viewers, which leaves them disengaged from the candidates and the political process (Houston and Roskos-Ewoldsen 1998;Houston, Doan, and Roskos-Ewoldsen 1999). Experiments have high internal validity but need real-world confirmation.…”

The hippocampus supports deliberation during value-based decisions

“…Such value signals are thought to be supported by the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC, Camille et al, 2011; Fellows, 2016; Fellows and Farah, 2007; Levy and Glimcher, 2011; Padoa-Schioppa and Assad, 2006). Yet, even when choosing between options that differ greatly in their subjective value, such choices involve a comparison of the values by way of taking both options, their relation, and their predicted value, into account (Houston et al, 1999; Tversky, 1972; Voigt et al, 2017). Resolving the choice between two options with similar value likely requires the generation of additional information—that is, evidence—to resolve the indecision.…”