Rethinking the Concept of Negativity: An Empirical Approach

Abstract

Over the last twenty years, there has been a tremendous amount written on “negativity” in political campaigns. Yet, there is a conceptual disconnect between the definition of negativity used by researchers and how citizens define negativity. In this article, we show how large this disparity is and what its consequences are. Using a nationally representative online survey of 17,400 Americans and nearly 100 scholars of American politics who viewed presidential ads from the 2012 general election, we show that citizen perceptions of negativity are much stronger predictors of political participation than scholar codings of negativity. This means researchers need to give serious thought to how they operationalize negativity in their work. If we have any interest in understanding how voters are affected by campaign information that they perceive as being negative, then we must collect data consistent with the public’s understanding of negativity. Otherwise, we risk the continuation of this conceptual disconnect.

Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and a look ahead

“…Beyond reviewing research on negative campaigning, this manuscript has discussed its conceptualization. Several authors suggest that the established definition and operationalization lack conceptual clarity (Fridkin and Kenney 2008;Richardson 2002;Jamieson et al 2000;Kahn and Kenney 1999;Kamber 1997;Mayer 1996;Jamieson 1992) and are far off from how 'common people' perceive it (Lipsitz and Geer 2017;Sigelman and Kugler 2003). Accounting for differences between various types of campaign messages shows that voters react differently to (un)civil campaign rhetoric or varying types of attacks (Mattes and Redlawsk 2014;Brooks and Geer 2007;Mutz and Reeves 2005).…”

“…' Sigelman and Kugler (2003) reveal substantive inconsistencies in perceptions of negative campaigning in the scientific literature and among voters. The standardized, dichotomous definition and measurement of negative campaigning does not reflect how voters perceive negative party communication, because most voters only disapprove negative messages that are unsubstantial, focus on apolitical candidate attributes or use extreme language (e.g., Lipsitz and Geer 2017;Mattes and Redlawsk 2014;Mutz and Reeves 2005). Hence, Lipsitz and Geer (2017) urge researchers to collect data that are consistent with the public's understanding of the concept if they want to understand its effects on voters.…”

Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making

“…The reason is simple: Political professionals almost uniformly believe that negative campaigning is effective (Mattes and Redlawsk 2014, 30), if not all of the time then at least under certain circumstances. While there is no shortage of anecdotal evidence to suggest that they are correct, academic studies have yielded mixed results regarding the persuasive effects of campaign ads generally (Fowler, Franz, and Ridout 2016), and of negative advertising or other forms of negative campaigning in particular (Geer 2006 It seems likely that the inconsistent findings of this literature are due at least in part to the fact that negativity lies in the eye of the beholder, that is, "whether a tactic, a candidate, or a campaign is [perceived as] negative depends on whose ox is being gored" (Sigelman and Kugler 2003, 144; also see Lipsitz and Geer 2017). The fact that self-identified partisans react differently to attacks coming from the other side than they do to criticism by candidates of their own party should therefore come as no surprise (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995;Stevens et al 2015).…”

Negative Political Communication on Social Media and the Gender Gap: A Study of Men's and Women's Reactions to Presidential Candidate Attacks on Facebook in 2012 and 2016

“…To name just a few, these conditions traditionally include the quality of an attack ad (see Mike Murphy's response in Craig and Hill 2011, 136 -137), the tone of an attack (Brooks 2010;Brooks and Geer 2007;Fridkin and Kenney 2011), whether an attack is policy based or personal (Fridkin and Kenney 2004), and whether it is contrasting or purely negative (Jamieson 2000). More recent research has expanded these conditions to include the source of the attack (i.e., outside group vs. candidate endorsed) (see, e.g., Brooks and Murov 2012;Dowling and Wichowsky 2015;Weber, Dunaway, and Johnson 2012); the timing of attacks within the election cycle (Krupnikov 2014); the relative status of incumbents and challengers in political races (Blackwell 2013); and the perceived credibility of the attacker (Lipsitz and Geer 2017;Mattes and Redlawsk 2014).…”