Existing studies on the determinants of negative campaigning conclude that context matters as the degree of positive and negative campaigning vary according to factors such as proximity to election day, poll standing, incumbency status, and the size of the ‘war chest’. The present article discusses whether not only the context, but also the content of campaigns needs to be considered when analysing why and when political parties go negative. The article argues that parties enjoying ownership of campaign issues tend to employ a more positive rhetorical style than parties with less ownership. Using four Danish election campaigns as cases, this proposition is empirically supported: the degree of issue ownership is positively correlated with a positive campaign tone, controlling for a range of traditional contextual factors. The new content factor does not outperform the usual contextual suspects, but it adds nuance to the general understanding of the determinants of negativity.
Andersen JG ( 2003) Partiernes image: De borgerlige bedst til at sikre velfærden . In: Andersen JG, Borre O (eds) Politisk forandring. Værdipolitik og nye skillelinjer ved folketingsvalget 2001. Aarhus: Systime.
2.
Asp K. and Esaiasson P. ( 1996) The modernization of Swedish campaigns: Individualization, professionalization, and medialization. In: Swanson D, Mancini P (eds) Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy. An International Study of Innovations in Electoral Campaigning and their Consequences. Westport, CT: Praeger.
3.
Bille L. ( 1998) Dansk partipolitik 1987-1998. København : Jurist- og konomforbundets Forlag.
4.
Bille L. ( 2001) Fra valgkamp til valgkamp. Dansk partipolitik 1998-2001 . København: Jurist- og konomforbundets Forlag.
5.
Bille L. ( 2006) Det nye flertal. Dansk partipolitik 2001-2005. København: Jurist- og konomforbundets Forlag .
6.
Blomqvist P. and Green-Pedersen C. ( 2004) Defeat at home? Issue-ownership and social democratic support in Scandinavia. Government and Opposition39(4): 587-613.
7.
Borre O. ( 2001) Issue Voting: An Introduction. Aarhus : Aarhus University Press.
8.
Budge I. and Farlie DJ ( 1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: George Allen and Unwin.
9.
Budge I., Klingemann H-D., Volkens A., et al. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
Damore D. ( 2002) Candidate strategy and the decision to go negative. Political Research Quarterly55(3): 669-85.
11.
Elmelund-Præstekær C. (2008) Negative campaigning in a multiparty system. Representation44(1): 27-39.
12.
Elmelund-Præstekær C. (2009) Kammertoner og unoder i dansk valgkamp. Partiernes positive og negative, person- og politikfokuserede kampagner 1994-2007. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
13.
Elmelund-Præstekær C. (2010) Beyond American negativity: Towards a general understanding of the determinants of negative campaigning . European Political Science Review2(1): 137-56.
14.
Franklin M, Mackie T and Valen H (eds) (1992) Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Fridkin KL and Kenney P. ( 2004) Do negative messages work? The impact of negativity on citizens’ evaluations of candidates. American Politics Research32(5): 570-605.
16.
Green J. and Hobolt SB ( 2008) Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices inBritish elections. Electoral Studies27(3): 460-76.
17.
Green-Pedersen C. ( 2007) The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies55(3): 608-28.
18.
Håkansson N. ( 1999) Valretorik. Om politiskt språk i partipropagandan . Göteborg: Statsvetenskapliga institutionen Göteborgs universitet.
19.
Hansen KM and Pedersen RT ( 2008) Negative campaigning in a multiparty system. Scandinavian Political Studies31(4): 408-27.
20.
Harrington JE and Hess GD ( 1996) A spatial theory of positive and negative campaigning . Games and Economic Behaviour17(2): 209-29.
21.
Hayes AF and Krippendorff K. ( 2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures1(1): 77-89.
22.
Jamieson KH ( 1993) Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy . New York: Oxford University Press .
23.
Jønsson R. and Larsen O. ( 2002) Professionel politisk kommunikation. Et studie af 20 dages valgkamp. København: Akademisk Forlag.
24.
Kahn KF and Kenney P. ( 1999) The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Karlsen R. ( 2004) Valgkamp i flerpartisystem: Aktualisering av saker og kamp om eierskap. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning45(4): 611-35.
26.
Klingemann H-D., Hofferbert R. and I. Budge ( 1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
27.
Krippendorff K. ( 2004) Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. London: Sage Publications.
28.
Lau R. and Pomper G. ( 2001) Negative campaigning by US Senate candidates. Party Politics7(1): 69-87.
29.
Mair P., Müller WC and Plasser F. ( 2004) Political Parties and Electoral Change: Party Responses to Electoral Markets. London: Sage Publications.
30.
Martin P. ( 2004) Inside the black box of negative campaign effects: Three reasons why negative campaigns mobilize. Political Psychology25(4): 545-62.
31.
Maurer M. ( 2007) Themen, Argumente, rhetorische Strategien. Die Inhalte des TV-Duells. In: Maurer M, Reinemann C, Maier J , et al. (eds) Schröder gegen Merkel. Wahrnehmung und Wirkung des TV-Duells 2005 im Ost-West-Vergleich. Wiesbaden : Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
32.
Narud HM and Valen H. ( 2001) Partikonkurranse og sakseierskap. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift17(4): 395-424.
33.
Norris P., Curtice J., Sanders D., et al. (1999) On Message: Communicating the Campaign. London: Sage Publications.
34.
Petrocik J. ( 1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825-50.
35.
Sanders D. and Norris P. ( 2005) The impact of political advertising in the 2001 UK general election. Political Research Quarterly58(4): 525-36.
36.
Schweitzer EJ(2010) Global patterns of virtual mudslinging? The use of attacks on German party websites in state, national and European Parliamentary elections. German Politics19(2): 200-21.
37.
Skaperdas S. and Grofman B. ( 1995) Modelling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review89(1): 49-61.
38.
Van der Brugge J. and Voss H. ( 2007) Årsager til de socialistiske partiers tilbagegang i perioden 1990-2005. In: Andersen JG, Borre O, Hansen KM , et al. (eds) Det nye politiske landskab: Folketingsvalget 2005 i perspektiv. Århus: Academica.
39.
Wahl-Jørgensen K. ( 2004) Playground of the pundits or voice of the people? Comparing British and Danish opinion pages. Journalism Studies5(1): 59-70.
40.
Walgrave S. and De Swert K. ( 2007) Where does issue ownership come from? From the party or from the media? Issue-party identifications in Belgium, 1991-2005. International Journal of Press/Politics12(1): 37-67.
