The Black‐Sheep Effect: How Positive and Negative Advertisements Affect Voters' Perceptions of the Sponsor of the Advertisement¹

Abstract

Participants read a positive or negative (mock) political advertisement that was sponsored by either an in‐group (subject and sponsor were members of the same political party) or an out‐group (subject and sponsor were members of different political parties) member. The results found support for a black‐sheep effect. An in‐group sponsor of a positive advertisement was evaluated more positively than any out‐group member, regardless of advertisement type, or an in‐group member who sponsored a negative advertisement. However, an in‐group sponsor of a negative advertisement was evaluated more negatively than either an in‐group sponsor of a positive advertisement. or an out‐group sponsor. regardless of advertisement type. The results are discussed in terms of social identity theory.

Negative Advertising and the Dynamics of Candidate Support

“…The findings here are similarly mixed. Some research suggests that citizens support candidates who attack at lower levels (Shapiro and Rieger 1992;Weaver-Lariscy and Tinkham 1996;Matthew and Dietz-Uhler 1998;Lemert et al 1999;Min 2004;Brader 2005) whereas other research implies just the opposite: that citizens are less supportive of candidates who use negative messages (Roddy and Garramone 1988;Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995;Kaid 1997;Shen and Wu 2002;King and McConnell 2003).…”

An Examination of the Association Between Gender and Reporting Intentions for Fraudulent Financial Reporting

“…Reversals, however, of in-group favoritism have been reported. When one seriously violates the group norms, several studies report that the in-group may assess this behavior even more harshly than it would that of a non-group member (Barry et al, 2006;Begue, 2001;Mathews and Dietz-Uhler, 1998).…”

The Influence of Tone, Target, and Issue Ownership on Political Advertising Effects in Primary Versus General Elections

“…This appears to stem from a desire to protect a positive group identity-and thus self-identity (Tajfel and Turner 1986)-from the negative behaviors of an in-group member. Matthews and Dietz-Uhler (1998) found this dynamic at work in negative advertising. In an experiment using mock political ads, they found that participants had more negative affective and behavioral reactions to ads alleging that the opponent ''did not support family values in his personal and professional life'' (Matthews andDietz-Uhler 1998, p. 1906) when the sponsor belonged to the same party as the participant.…”

“…Matthews and Dietz-Uhler (1998) found this dynamic at work in negative advertising. In an experiment using mock political ads, they found that participants had more negative affective and behavioral reactions to ads alleging that the opponent ''did not support family values in his personal and professional life'' (Matthews andDietz-Uhler 1998, p. 1906) when the sponsor belonged to the same party as the participant. Matthews and Dietz-Uhler (1998) suggested that ''the backlash effect described by many researchers may be a manifestation of the black sheep effect' ' (p. 1905).…”

“…In an experiment using mock political ads, they found that participants had more negative affective and behavioral reactions to ads alleging that the opponent ''did not support family values in his personal and professional life'' (Matthews andDietz-Uhler 1998, p. 1906) when the sponsor belonged to the same party as the participant. Matthews and Dietz-Uhler (1998) suggested that ''the backlash effect described by many researchers may be a manifestation of the black sheep effect' ' (p. 1905). But if so, one generally would expect to see the strongest backlash among partisans of the attacker, which is the opposite of what others describe (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995, Faber et al 1990, Merritt 1984.…”