Although two-sided persuasion is a common technique in political speeches, few research has reported the relative persuasiveness of a one-versus two-sided message in the context of negative political advertising. Participants (N = 116) viewed a negative political ad, varying in message sidedness (one-sided vs. two-sided) and partisan match (partisan-match vs. partisan-mismatch vs. unaffiliated). Multivariate results revealed the relative advantage of two-sided persuasion in the partisan-match condition where participants viewed a negative ad targeting their supporting party candidate. One-sided persuasion was more effective in the partisan-mismatch condition where participants viewed a negative ad criticizing the opposition party candidate. Implications for the practice of strategic negative political campaigns were discussed.
AgrawalN., & MaheswaranD. (2005). Motivated reasoning in outcome-bias effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 798–805.
2.
AllenM. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390–404.
3.
AnsolabehereS., & IyengarS. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: The Free Press.
4.
BandaK. K., & WindettJ. H. (2016). Negative advertising and the dynamics of candidate support. Political Behavior, 38(3), 747–766.
5.
BowmanN. D. (2017). The importance of effect size reporting in communication research. Communication Research Reports, 34(3), 187–190.
6.
CasseseE. C., & HolmanM. R. (2018). Party and gender stereotypes in campaign attacks. Political Behavior, 40(3), 785–807.
7.
CappellaJ. N., & JamiesonK. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8.
ChangC. (2003). Party bias in political-advertising processing. Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 55–67.
9.
ChebatJ.-C., & PicardJ. (1988). Receivers’ self-acceptance and the effectiveness of two-sided messages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(3), 353–362.
10.
CowleyA. E., & HoyerW. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561–574.
11.
DolnikL., CaseT. I., & WilliamsK. D. (2003). Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries. Law and Human Behavior, 27(3), 267–287.
12.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225–256.
13.
EisendM. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 187–198.
14.
EisendM. (2007). Understanding two-sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology and Marketing, 24, 615–640.
15.
EtgarM., & GoodwinS. A. (1982). One-sided versus two-sided message appeals for new brand introduction. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 460–465.
16.
FaberJ. R., TimsR. A., & SchmittG. K. (1993). Negative political advertising and voting intent: The role of involvement and alternative information sources. Journal of Advertising, 22(4), 67–76.
17.
FeldmanL. (2011). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect. Political Behavior, 33, 407–432.
18.
FridkinK. L., & KenneyP. J. (2008). The dimensions of negative messages. American Politics Research, 36(5), 694–723.
19.
GoldenL. L., & AlpertM. I. (1987). Comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of one-and two-sided communication for contrasting products. Journal of Advertising, 16, 18–25.
20.
HendersonJ. A., & TheodoridisA. G. (2017). Seeing sports: Partisanship, negativity and the conditional receipt of campaign advertisements. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. doi. org/10.1007/s11109-017-9432–6.
21.
HoustonD. A., DoanK., & Roskos-EwoldsenD. (1999). Negative political advertising and choice conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(1), 3–16.
22.
HovlandC. I., JanisI. L., & KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: University Press.
23.
HoyerW. D., & MaclnnisD. J. (2004). Consumer behavior (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
24.
HugeM., & GlynnC. J. (2010). Hostile media and the campaign trail: Perceived media bias in the race for governor. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 165–181.
25.
IyengarS., & HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.
26.
JacksonR. A., MondakJ. J., & HuckfeldtR. (2009). Examining the possible corrosive impact of negative advertising on citizens’ attitudes toward politics. Political Research Quarterly, 62(1), 55–69.
27.
KaidL. L. (2004). Measuring candidate images with semantic differentials. In HackerK. L. (Eds.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 231–236). Westport, CT: Praeger.
28.
KaidL. L., & BoydstonJ. (1987). An experimental study of the effectiveness of negative political advertisements. Communication Quarterly, 35, 193–201.
29.
KaoD. T. (2011). Message sidedness in advertising: The moderating role of need for cognition and time pressure in persuasion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 329–340.
30.
KennamerD. J. (1994). Public opinion, the press, and public policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
31.
KerenG. (2007). Framing, intentions, and trust–choice incompatibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 238–255.
32.
LangB., LeeC. K., & ZwickR. (1999). Message sidedness at the brand and product from levels: Overcoming the shortcomings of two-sided messages. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 485–490.
33.
LauR. R., SigelmanL., & RovnerI. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209.
34.
MackieD. M., & AhnM. N. (1998). Ingroup and outgroup inferences: When ingroup bias overwhelms outcome bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3), 343–360.
35.
MathesonK., & DursunS. (2001). Social identity precursors to the hostile media phenomenon: Partisan perceptions of coverage of the Bosnian conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(2), 116–126.
36.
MerrittS. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising, 13, 27–38.
37.
O’KeefeD. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive message: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22(1), 209–249.
38.
O’KeefeD. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different message types does not vary as a function of the persuasive outcome assessed: Evidence from 29 meta-analyses of 2,062 effect sizes for 13 message variations. Annals of the International Communication Association, 37(1), 221–249.
39.
PfauM., & BurgoonM. (1988). Inoculation in political campaign communication. Human Communication Research, 15(1), 91–111.
40.
PerloffR. M. (2002). Political campaign persuasion and its discontents: Perspectives from the past and research prescriptions for the future. In DillardJ. P. & PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 605–632). London: Sage.
41.
PerloffR. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42.
PinkletonB. E., UmN. H., & AustinE. W. (2002). An exploration of the effects of negative political decision making. Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 13–25.
43.
PizzuttiC., BassoK., & AlbornozM. (2016). The effect of the discounted attribute importance in two-sided messages. European Journal of Marketing, 50(9/10), 1703–1725.
44.
RuckerD. D., PettyR. E., & BriñolR. (2008). What’s in a frame anyway? A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(2), 137–149.
45.
SanaktekinO. H., & SunarD. (2008). Persuasion and relational versus personal bases of self-esteem: Does the message need to be one-or two-sided?Social Behavior and Personality, 36(10), 1315–1332.
46.
ShahD., KwakN., SchmierbachM., & ZubricJ. (2004). The interplay of news frames on cognitive complexity. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 102–120.
47.
Schenck-HamlinW. J., ProcterD. E., & RumseyD. J. (2000). The influence of negative advertising frames on political cynicism and politician accountability. Human Communication Research, 26(1), 53–74.
48.
StevensD., SullivanJ., AllenB., & AlgerD. (2008). What’s good for the goose is bad for the gander: Negative political advertising, partisanship, and turnout. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 527–541.
49.
WallaceG. (2016, November8). Negative ads dominate in campaign’s final days. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/negative-ads-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
50.
WestenD., BlagovP., HarenskiK., KiltsC., & HamannS. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An FMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947–1958.
51.
WiestS. L., RaymondL., & ClawsonR. A. (2015). Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 31, 187–198.
52.
WilliamsK. D., BourgeoisM. J., & CroyleR. T. (1993). The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law and Human Behavior, 17(6), 597–609.
