The authors use both laboratory experiments and case studies to show how negative advertising drives down voter turnout.

This volume provides a unique synthesis of the relevant literature from academic studies in the fields of political science, marketing, advertising, speech communication, telecommunication, and public relations combined with the practical wisdom of professional consultants. Offering the reader both the theory and practical applications associated with negative political advertising, this is the first book devoted exclusively to the various forms of negative campaigning in the United States. After developing a typology of negative political spots for greater clarity in explaining and evaluating them, the book addresses effectiveness questions such as: What works? When? Why? and How?

Americans tend to see negative campaign ads as just that: negative. Pundits, journalists, voters, and scholars frequently complain that such ads undermine elections and even democratic government itself. But John G. Geer here takes the opposite stance, arguing that when political candidates attack each other, raising doubts about each other’s views and qualifications, voters—and the democratic process—benefit. In Defense of Negativity, Geer’s study of negative advertising in presidential campaigns from 1960 to 2004, asserts that the proliferating attack ads are far more likely than positive ads to focus on salient political issues, rather than politicians’ personal characteristics. Accordingly, the ads enrich the democratic process, providing voters with relevant and substantial information before they head to the polls. An important and timely contribution to American political discourse, In Defense of Negativity concludes that if we want campaigns to grapple with relevant issues and address real problems, negative ads just might be the solution.

Citing the dangers associated with negative political advertising, a detailed study identifies its link to low voter turnout and discrimination

This volume provides a unique synthesis of the relevant literature from academic studies in the fields of political science, marketing, advertising, speech communication, telecommunication, and public relations combined with the practical wisdom of professional consultants. Offering the reader both the theory and practical applications associated with negative political advertising, this is the first book devoted exclusively to the various forms of negative campaigning in the United States. After developing a typology of negative political spots for greater clarity in explaining and evaluating them, the book addresses effectiveness questions such as: What works? When? Why? and How?

Negative campaigning is frequently denounced, but it is not well understood. Who conducts negative campaigns? Do they work? What is their effect on voter turnout and attitudes toward government? Just in time for an assessment of election 2004, two distinguished political scientists bring us a sophisticated analysis of negative campaigns for the Senate from 1992 to 2002. The results of their study are surprising and challenge conventional wisdom: negative campaigning has dominated relatively few elections over the past dozen years, there is little evidence that it has had a deleterious effect on our political system, and it is not a particularly effective campaign strategy. These analyses bring novel empirical techniques to the study of basic normative questions of democratic theory and practice.

Negative campaigning is a central component of politics in the United States. Yet, until now, demonstrating the impact of combative advertising on voters has been elusive. How can we reconcile the findings of a plethora of studies with the methods of politicians? This book cuts through to the central issue: how negative advertising influences voters' attitudes and actions. Focusing on U.S. senatorial campaigns, Kim Fridkin and Patrick Kenney draw from surveys, experiments, facial expression analysis, content analyses, and focus groups. They develop the "tolerance and tactics theory of negativity" that marries citizens' tolerance for negativity with campaign messages varying in their civility and relevance and demonstrate how citizens' beliefs and behaviors are affected. Using this original framework, they find harsh and relevant messages influence voters' decisions, especially for people with less tolerance for negativity. And, irrelevant and uncivil advertisements demobilize voters, with low tolerance individuals affected most sharply.