Do Negative Advertisements Work: Exploring the Dimensions of Negativity
An article on the front page of the Washington Post called the amount of
negativity in the 2004 campaign “unprecedented.” According to scholars and political
strategists cited in the news story, the negativity in the campaign “…has been
extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties…taken with the facts.”
(Milbank and VandeHei, 2004: A1). For example, in the month from September 7, 2004
to October 7, 2004, 64% of President Bush’s advertisements contained some negative
attacks on Senator Kerry. Not to be outdone, during this same time frame, 84% of
Senator Kerry’s advertisements presented negative information about President Bush. In
addition, during this one month in 2004, the Democratic and Republican parties as well
as groups supporting President Bush and Senator Kerry failed to run one positive
advertisement (Nielsen Monitor-Plus/University of Wisconsin Advertising Project,
10/12/2004). Negative advertisements are just as prevalent in midterm elections.
According to the Goldstein and Rivlin (forthcoming) over one million advertisements
aired in the top 75 media markets during the 2002 campaign season and 44% of the
advertisements were negative--either attack or contrast advertisements.
There is consensus among politicians, candidates, political elites and students of
politics that the amount of negative advertising available to ordinary citizens today is
unprecedented. Candidates and campaign strategists believe negative campaigning works
(Able, Herrnson, Magleby, Patterson, 2001; Thurber and Nelson, 2000). However,
scholars have been unable to consistently validate the claims of practitioners (e.g.,
Freedman and Goldstein, 1999; Goldstein and Freedman, 2000; Lau and Pomper, 2002;
Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, and Babbitt, 1999)
3
Convention