An Examination of the Amount, Substance, and Tone of Negative Commercials in Senate Elections

A content analysis utilizing data from the Wesleyan Media Project and examining nearly 700 negative advertisements airing 500,000 times during the 2014 U.S. Senate elections is the heart of chapter 4. The analyses demonstrate negative advertisements are most pervasive in competitive races, during the last weeks of the campaign, on local news broadcasts, and during early morning programming. In addition, advertising attacking women candidates often employ women narrators, while male narrators are utilized more often in advertisements attacking men. Almost three-quarters of all attack advertisements criticize the candidate’s policy stands, while advertisements focusing on personal matters are less common. The majority of the negative advertisements during the 2014 Senate elections are classified as civil, while almost one-quarter of the advertisements are rated as low in civility. Most negative advertisements examined (90%) were classified as somewhat or very relevant.

The Consequences of Negative Campaigning

Chapter 8 begins with a review of the book’s findings regarding the impact of negative campaigning in U.S. Senate races and assesses the evidence for the tolerance and tactics theory of negativity. The tolerance and tactics theory of negativity helps to resolve several debates in the negative campaigning literature. For example, in light of the book’s findings, it is easier to predict the types of negative advertisements that are more likely to influence people’s evaluations of candidates. Similarly, the theory and evidence advance explanations about when negative messages will enhance turnout and when these messages are more likely to depress turnout. Since the bulk of negative advertisements are sponsored by outside groups, the chapter examines how the increased role of outside money, especially dark money, shapes political campaigns and citizens’ attitudes and actions. The chapter concludes by discussing the role of contemporary campaigns in America.

Reactions to the Civility and Relevance of Negative Advertisements

The findings presented in chapter 5 indicate people recognize and make distinctions about the relevance and civility of negative advertisements. Focus group respondents rated advertisements aired in the 2014 senatorial campaigns in ways consistent with the assessments made by the content analysis coders. This finding helps validate the content analysis findings. In addition, state-of-the-art software is used to measure people’s real-time emotional reactions to different negative advertisements aired during the 2014 Senate elections in a second focus group. The results of the emotions analysis reveal that people vary in their emotional reactions to different types of negative messages. Consistent with the tolerance and tactics theory of negativity, people have strong negative reactions to attack advertisements focusing on irrelevant topics compared to messages emphasizing useful topics. Findings also show people’s level of tolerance for incivility influences their emotional responses to negativity.

Data, Measurements, and Methodology

Chapter 2 presents the divergent data sets, collected in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 and focusing primarily on the 2014 U.S. Senate campaigns, used to test the tolerance and tactics theory of negativity. U.S. Senate elections are the ideal laboratory for exploring the impact of negative advertising because senatorial campaigns are characterized by impressive variability in the amount, content, and tone of negativity, the types of candidates, the size of the constituencies, and the characteristics of the media markets. A variety of methods, including surveys, experiments, content analyses, focus groups, and facial recognition software are used to measure people’s tolerance for negativity; the relevance and civility of negative advertisements; and people’s reactions to negative commercials varying in civility and relevance. These various data sets are ultimately used to assess the impact of negative advertisements on people’s assessments of candidates and on their decision to vote on Election Day.

How Negative Campaigning Influences Citizens’ Evaluations of Candidates and Likelihood of Voting

The analysis in chapter 7 combines survey data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey with information about the airing and content of negative advertisements. It demonstrates that the relevance and civility of negative messages consistently influence people’s assessments of U.S. Senate candidates. The analysis shows that negative messages are persuasive when they focus on relevant topics and are delivered in an uncivil manner. These messages are most influential for people with less tolerance of negative campaigning. The relevance and civility of campaign messages also influence people’s likelihood of voting. When campaign messages are focused on irrelevant topics and delivered in an uncivil manner (mudslinging), people’s willingness to vote declines. Finally, the impact of uncivil and irrelevant messages on political participation is conditioned by people’s level of tolerance for negativity. That is, people with less tolerance of negativity are more influenced by changing levels of mudslinging.

Examining Citizens’ Impressions of Negativity During U.S. Senate Campaigns

Chapter 6 presents the results of a national survey experiment conducted during the 2014 senatorial elections that validates central elements of the tolerance and tactics theory of negativity. First, people with low levels of tolerance for negativity are more likely to see incivility in negative messages and view negative messages as less usefulcompared to citizens who tolerate negative campaigning more easily. Second, the importance of tolerance for negativity holds up, even when controlling for important political predispositions, such as party attachment and attitudes about the issues. These findings demonstrate that tolerance for negativity is different from people’s partisan and policy profile. Third, the importance of tolerance for negativity is critical during the throes of the campaign as well as after the campaign has ended and all votes are tallied. These results indicate that tolerance for negativity is not a transient phenomenon active only during electoral campaigns.

Citizens’ Tolerance of Negative Campaign Messages

In chapter 3, different data sets across several years employ survey measures to assess people’s tolerance toward negative messages. The analysis shows that women and older people are less likely to tolerate uncivil and irrelevant negative advertisements. In contrast, people who are more engaged in politics and who place themselves on the right side of the ideological scale are more likely to tolerate these same types of messages. However, analyses indicate people’s tolerance toward negative campaigning is not static but changes over the length of the campaign. In particular, people’s tolerance of negativity decreases when they are exposed to a greater dose of negative political advertisements during campaigns for the U.S. Senate.

Untangling the Impact of Negative Campaigning on Citizens

The tolerance and tactics theory of negativity is presented in Chapter 1. The marriage of citizens’ tolerance for negativity, on the one hand, with the tactics employed by candidates, on the other hand, will clarify when negative campaigning works. The theory begins with a simple premise: people vary in their tolerance for negative campaigning and individuals with less tolerance for negativity will be more influenced by attack advertising. In addition, it is crucial to consider the content and tone of the negative messages to know when negativity will be effective. Finally, the interplay between people’s tolerance of negativity and candidates’ tactics provide a framework for understanding the effects of negativity on citizens’ assessments of candidates and their likelihood of voting on Election Day.