The research examining negative campaigning has focused largely on the effects that exposure to negative advertising has on voters' decisionmaking. Less attention has been given to studying the conditions that motivate candidates to employ negative campaign tactics. I attempt to move our understanding of this process forward by unifying hypotheses suggested in the literature into a more cohesive theoretical framework and testing them against data collected from all available campaign advertisements produced by major party presidential candidates competing in the 1976-1996 general elections. The results of the logit analysis indicate that candidates' decisions to go negative are a function of changes to the campaign environment, the dynamic interplay that develops between candidates over the course of campaigns, and attributes of issues on the campaign agenda.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Charles H. Franklin. 1994.“Uncertainty and Political Perceptions”. Journal of Politics56: 671-689.
3.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.
4.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, and Nicholas Valentino. 1994.“Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?”American Political Science Review88: 829-938.
5.
Basil, Michael, Caroline Schooler, and Byron Reeves. 1991.“Positive and Negative Political Advertising: Effectiveness of Ads and Perceptions of Candidates.” In Frank Biocca, ed., Television and Political Advertising, Vol. I. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Brians, Craig Leonard, and Martin P Wattenberg. 1996.“Campaign Issue Knowledge and Salience: Comparing Reception from TV Commercials, TV News, and Newspapers”. American Journal of Political Science40: 172-193.
7.
Chance, Amy2000.“Key to Winning: Hit Rivals Hard.”The Sacramento Bee, March 9.
8.
Damore, David F 2000.“Agenda Setting in Presidential Campaigns.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.
9.
Diamond, Gregory Andrade, and Michael D. Cobb. 1996.“The Candidate as Catastrophe: Latitude Theory and the Problems of Political Persuasion.” In Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody, eds., Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
10.
Finkel, Steven E., and John G. Geer. 1998.“Spot Check: Casting Doubt on the Demobilizing Effect of Attack Advertising”. American Journal of Political Science42: 573-595.
11.
Franklin, Charles H.1991.“Eschewing Obfuscation: Campaigns and Perceptions of U.S. Senate Incumbents”. American Political Science Review85: 1193-1214.
12.
Freedman, Paul, and Ken Goldstein. 1999.“Measuring Media Exposure and the Effects of Negative Campaign Ads”. American Journal of Political Science43: 1189-1209.
13.
Garramone, Gina M.1984.“Voter Response to Negative Political Ads”. Journalism Quarterly61: 250-259.
14.
Garramone, Gina M.1985.“Effects of Negative Political Advertising: The Roles of Sponsor and Rebuttal”. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media29: 147-159.
15.
Geer, John G.1998.“Campaigns, Party Competition, and Political Advertising.” In John G. Geer, ed., Politicians and Party Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Goldman, Peter, Thomas M. DeFrank, Mark Miller, Andrew Murr, and Tom Mathews. 1992. Questfor the Presidency. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
17.
Hale, Jon F, Jeffrey C. Fox, and Rick Farmer. 1996.“Negative Advertisements in U.S. Senate Campaigns: The Influence of Campaign Context”. Social Science Quarterly77: 329-343.
18.
Harrington, Joseph E., and Gregory D. Hess. 1996.“A Spatial Theory of Positive and Negative Campaigning”. Games and Economic Behavior17: 209-229.
19.
Haynes, Audrey A., and Staci L. Rhine. 1998.“Attack Politics in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: An Examination of the Frequency and Determinants of Intermediated Negative Messages Against Opponents”. Political Research Quarterly51: 691-721.
20.
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1994.“Issues, Candidate Image, and Priming: The Use of Private Polls in Kennedy's 1960 Presidential Campaign”. American Political Science Review8: 527-540.
21.
Jamieson, Kathleen. 1996. Packaging the President, 3d ed.New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Patrick J. Kenney1999a.“Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout?Clarifying the Relationship Between Negativity and Participation.”93: 877-890.
23.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Patrick J. Kenney. 1999b. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
24.
Kaid, Lynda Lee. 1997.“Effects of the Television Spots on Images of Dole and Clinton”. American Behavioral Scientist40: 1085-1094.
25.
Lau, Richard R.1982.“'Negativity in Political Perception”. Political Behavior5: 353-378.
26.
Lau, Richard R.1985.“Two Explanations of Negativity Effects in Political Behavior”. American Journal of Political Science29: 119-138.
27.
Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, and Paul Babbitt. 1999.“The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment”. American Political Scitnce Review93: 851-876.
28.
Newhagen, John. E., and Byron Reeves. 1991.“Emotion and Memory Response for Negative Political Advertising: A Study of Television Commercials Used in the 1988 Presidential Election.” In Frank Biocca, ed., Television and Political Advertising, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
Page, Benjamin I.1976.“The Theory of Political Ambiguity”American Political Science Review70: 742-752.
30.
Petrocik, John R.1991.“Divided Government: Is it All in the Campaigns?” In Gary W Cox and Samuel Kernell, ed., The Politics of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
31.
Petrocik, John R.1996.“Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study”American Journal of Political Science40: 825-850.
32.
Pfau, Michael, and H. C. Kenski. 1990. Attack Politics: Strategy and Defense. New York: Prager.
33.
Riker, William H.1993.“Introduction.” In William H. Riker, ed., Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34.
Shaw, Daron R.1999a.“The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988-96”. American Political Science Review93: 345-362.
35.
Shaw, Daron R.1999b.“The Methods Behind the Madness: Presidential Electoral College Strategies, 1988-1996”. The Journal of Politics61: 893-913.
36.
Shepsle, Kenneth A.“The Strategy of Ambiguity”American Political Science Review66: 555-568.
37.
Skaperdas, Stergios, and Bernard Grofman. 1995.“Modeling Negative Campaigning”. American Political Science Review89: 49-61.
38.
Theilmann, John, and Allen Wilhite. 1998.“Campaign Tactics and the Decision to Attack”. Journal of Politics60: 1050-1062.
39.
Wattenberg, Martin P, and Craig Leonard Brians. 1999.“Negative Campaign Tactics: Demobilizer of Mobilizer?”American Political Science Review93: 891-900.
40.
West, Darrell M., Montague Kern, Dean Alger, and Janice M. Goggin. 1995.“Ad Buys in Presidential Campaigns: The Strategies of Electoral Appeal”. Political Communication12: 275-290.
