Beyond the Headlines: Examining the Role of Negative Campaigning Media Coverage on Electoral Trust

Abstract

Negative campaigning is an age-old strategy, yet its impact on trust in election outcomes remains underexplored, particularly in newer democracies. In this study, I argue that negative campaign messages erode electoral trust by fostering cynicism, undermining confidence in politicians, and heightening the perceived stakes of elections. By signalling that candidates will do whatever it takes to win, such messages raise concerns about fraud and diminish institutional trust. I further contend that these effects depend on the autonomy of electoral management bodies (EMBs). When EMB autonomy is low, greater exposure to negative campaigning significantly increases perceptions that elections are unfair. By contrast, where EMBs are highly autonomous, negative campaigning does not reduce trust in electoral integrity and may even bolster it, as institutional safeguards reassure voters. To test these claims, I draw on Afrobarometer survey data from eighteen countries across three rounds, expert assessments of negative campaign coverage from the Negative Campaigning Comparative Expert Survey, and measures of EMB autonomy from Varieties of Democracy. My findings show that the interaction between media negativity and EMB independence shapes public trust in elections, underscoring the central role of electoral institutions in mediating the democratic consequences of campaign strategies.