While the study of the use of negative campaign tactics has been a prolific topic of scholarship, previous studies have been limited in their ability to test the dynamics of negativity over the course of the campaign because their analysis of content from political campaigns is either static in nature or limited in its scope. Although we know that the closeness of the race, the status of the candidate as an incumbent or a challenger, and other characteristics affect the volume of negativity over the entire campaign, we know little about how these factors affect when candidates choose to go negative. Using a unique data set of over 1,400 emails sent out by campaigns from a random sample of congressional districts in 2012, we examine negativity over the course of the campaign. We find that the dynamics of negativity vary by whether there is an incumbent in the race.
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BroockmanD. E.GreenD. P. (2014). Do online advertisements increase political candidates’ name recognition or favorability? Evidence from randomized field experiments. Political Behavior, 36, 263-289.
3.
CampbellJ. E. (2010). The seats in trouble forecast of the 2010 elections to the U.S. House. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43, 627-630.
4.
CouperM. P. (2008). Designing effective Web surveys. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
6.
DohertyD.AdlerE. S. (2014). Comparing the effects of positive and negative campaign mailers: Findings from a field experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 67, 562-573.
7.
DruckmanJ. N.KiferM. J.ParkinM. (2009). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103, 343-366.
8.
DruckmanJ. N.KiferM. J.ParkinM. (2010). Timeless strategy meets new medium: Going negative on congressional campaign web sites, 2002-2006. Political Communication, 27, 88-103.
9.
EvansH. K.CordovaV.SipoleS. (2014). Twitter-style: An analysis of how house candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47, 454-462.
10.
FlowersJ. F.HaynesA. A.CrespinM. H. (2003). The media, the campaign, and the message. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 259-273.
11.
FowlerE. F.RidoutT. N. (2013). Negative, angry, and ubiquitous: Political advertising in 2012. The Forum, 10(4), 51-61.
12.
FreedmanP.GoldsteinK. M. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1189-1208.
13.
FridkinK. L.KenneyP. J. (2011). Variability in citizens’ reactions to different types of negative campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 307-325.
14.
GibsonR. K.MargolisM.ResnickD.WardS. J. (2003). Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK: A comparative analysis. Party Politics, 9, 47-75.
15.
GoldsteinK. M.FreedmanP. (2002). Lessons learned: Campaign advertising in the 2000 elections. Political Communication, 19, 5-28.
HassellH. J. G. (2011). Looking beyond the voting constituency: A study of campaign donation solicitations in the 2008 presidential primary and general election. Journal of Political Marketing, 10, 27-42.
18.
HerrnsonP. S. (2012). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
19.
HerrnsonP. S.Stokes-BrownA. K.HindmanM. (2007). Campaign politics and the digital divide: Constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and candidate internet use in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 31-42.
JacobsonG. C. (2009). The politics of congressional elections (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
22.
KahnK. F.KenneyP. J. (1999). The spectacle of U.S. Senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
KennedyP. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24.
KrupnikovY.EasterB. C. (2013). Negative campaigns: Are they good for American democracy. In RidoutT. N. (Ed.), New directions in media and politics (pp. 100-112). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
LaPiereR. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
26.
LauR. R.PomperG. M. (2001). Negative campaigning by US Senate candidates. Party Politics, 7, 69-87.
27.
LauR. R.PomperG. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. Senate elections. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
PriceV.ZallerJ. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-164.
32.
PuopoloS. (2001). The web and U.S. senatorial campaigns 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2030-2047.
33.
RidoutT. N.FowlerE. F. (2010). Explaining perceptions of advertising tone. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 62-75.
34.
SchumanH.JohnsonM. P. (1976). Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 161-207.
35.
SchumanH.PresserS. (1980). Public opinion and public ignorance: The fine line between attitudes and nonattitudes. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 1214-1225.
36.
SigelmanL.ShiraevE. (2002). The rational attacker in Russia? Negative campaigning in Russian presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 64, 45-62.
37.
SkaperdasS.GrofmanB. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89, 419-461.
38.
StoutC.KlineR. (2008). Ashamed not to vote for an African-American; ashamed to vote for a woman: An analysis of the Bradley effect from 1982-2006 (Working paper). Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine.
39.
TheilmannJ.WilhiteA. (1998). Campaign tactics and the decision to attack. Journal of Politics, 60, 1050-1062.
40.
TrammellK. D.WilliamsA. P. (2004). Evaluating candidate e-mail messages in the 2002 Florida gubernatorial campaign. Journal of E-Government, 1, 105-120.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
