One expectation for American election campaigns is that they inform citizens about candidates' policy inclinations, clarifying the policy directions advocated by the major party nominees. Evidence from the 1998 elections to the House of Representatives indicates that the more negative issue advertisements were broadcast, the more confident citizens became that they knew the targeted candidate's ideological position. However, the more negative issue advertisements about a candidate aired, the greater citizens' perceptual error of the candidate's ideological position. Issue attack ads lead citizens to believe they know more than they actually do, failing to produce the democratic ideal of an informed electorate.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar.1995. Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
2.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, and Charles Stewart III.2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science45:136-59.
3.
Bartels, Larry M.2000. Campaign quality: Standards for evaluation, benchmarks for reform. In Campaign reform: Insights and evidence, ed. Larry M. Bartels and Lynn Vavreck.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
Buchanan, Bruce.2000. Regime support and campaign reform. In Campaign reform: Insights and evidence, ed. Larry M. Bartels and Lynn Vavreck.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Coleman, John J., and Paul F. Manna .2000. Congressional campaign spending and the quality of democracy. Journal of Politics62:757-89.
6.
Erikson, Robert S., and Gerald C. Wright .1997. Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections. In Congress reconsidered, ed. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
7.
Freedman, Paul, and Ken Goldstein .1999. Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science43:1189-1208.
8.
Geer, John G.2005. Attacking democracy: A defense of negativity in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Gilovich, Thomas, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman .2002. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Hetherington, Marc J.2004. Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Holbrook, Allyson L., Jon A. Krosnick, Penny S. Visser, Wendi L. Gardner, and John T. Cacioppo .2001. Attitudes toward presidential candidates and political parties: Initial optimism, inertial first impressions, and a focus on flaws. American Journal of Political Science45:930-50.
12.
Husted, Thomas A., Lawrence W. Kenny, and Rebecca B. Morton .1995. Constituent errors in assessing their senators. Public Choice83:251-71.
13.
Jacobson, Gary C.1999. Impeachment politics in the 1998 congressional elections . Political Science Quarterly114:33-40.
14.
---. 2004. The politics of congressional elections. New York: Longman.
15.
Kelley, Stanley, Jr.1960. Political campaigning: Problems in creating an informed electorate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
16.
King, Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, and Kenneth Scheve.1999. Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. http://gking.harvard.edu/stats.shtml.
17.
Koch, Jeffrey W.2003. Being certain versus being right: Citizen certainty and accuracy of house candidates' ideological orientations. Political Behavior25:221-46.
18.
Kuklinski, James H., Paul J. Quirk, Jennifer Jerit, David Schwieder, and Robert F. Rich.2000. Misinformation and the currency of citizenship . Journal of Politics62:791-816.
19.
Marcus, George E., and Michael B. MacKuen .1993. Anxiety, enthusiasm and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review87:672-85.
20.
Mayer, William G..1996. In defense of negative campaigning. Political Science Quarterly111 (3): 437-55.
21.
McGinniss, Joe.1969. The selling of the president. New York: Simon & Schuster.
22.
Nisbett, Richard, and Lee Ross.1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcoming of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
Patterson, Thomas E.1980. The mass media election: How Americans choose their president . New York: Praeger.
24.
Price, Vincent, and John Zaller.1993. Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly57:133-64.
25.
Shepsle, Kenneth A.1972. The strategy of ambiguity: uncertainty and electoral competitiveness . American Political Science Review66:555-68.
