What (or Who) Makes Campaigns Negative?

Authors

  • Matt Grossmann

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2012.33.0.1-22

Abstract

Previous work on negative political advertising focuses on candidate characteristics and electoral circumstances; it reveals inconsistencies in the effects of party, incumbency, gender, and competitiveness. I argue that one important set of variables has been excluded: the consulting firms who produce candidate advertising may influence negativity. I explain variation in attack ads and negativity across campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002 and 2004, finding that particular consulting firms run more negative campaigns, regardless of electoral circumstances. Idiosyncratic preferences of campaign consultants thus influence the character of campaigns.

References

Benoit, William. 2007. Incumbency in Political Campaign Discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Benoit, William L., P.M. Pier, and Joseph R. Blaney. 1997. A Functional Approach to Televised Political Spots: Acclaiming, Attacking, Defending. Communication Quarterly 45(1):1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379709370041

Benoit, William L., P.M. Pier, and Joseph R. Blaney. 1998. Campaign '96: A Functional Analysis of Acclaiming, Attacking, and Defending. New York: Praeger.

Bratcher, Christopher N. 2001. Negative Campaigning in United States Senate Elections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

Bystrom, Dianne G., and Linda L. Kaid. 2002. Are Women Candidates Transforming Campaign Communication? A Comparison of Advertising Videostyles in the 1990s. In Women Transforming Congress, ed. C.S. Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Damore, David F. 2002. Candidate Strategy and the Decision to Go Negative Political Research Quarterly 55(3):669-685.

Dinzes, Deborah, Michael D. Cozzens, and George G. Manross. 1994. The Role of Gender in 'Attack Ads': Revisiting Negative Political Advertising. Communication Research Reports 11(1):67-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359942

Dulio, David A. 2004. For Better of Worse? How Political Consultants are Changing Elections in the United States. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Fox, Richard L. 1997. Gender Dynamics in Presidential Elections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483327839

Francia, Peter L., and Paul S. Herrnson. 2007. Keeping it Professional: The Influence of Political Consultants on Candidate Attitudes toward Negative Campaigning. Politics & Policy 35(2):246-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00059.x

Freedman, Paul, and Ken Goldstein. 1999. Measuring Media Exposure and the Effects of Negative Campaign Ads. American Journal of Political Science 43(4):1189-1208. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991823

Geer, John G. 2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attacks Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226285009.001.0001

Goldstein, Ken, and Paul Freedman. 2002. Lessons Learned: Advertising in the 2000 Elections. Political Communication 19(1):5-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246461

Grossmann, Matt. 2009a. Going Pro? The Professional Model and Political Campaign Consulting. Journal of Political Marketing 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377850902813352

Grossmann, Matt. 2009b. Campaigning as an Industry: Consulting Business Models and Intra-Party Competition. Business & Politics 11(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1243

Haynes, Audrey A., and Staci L. Rhine. 1998. Attack Politics in Presidential Nominating Campaigns: An Examination of the Frequency and Determinants of Intermediated Negative Messages against Opponents. Political Research Quarterly 51(3):691-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299805100307 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088045

Herrnson, Paul. 1992. Campaign Professionalism and Fund-Raising in Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 54:859-870. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2132315

Herrnson, Paul S., and Jennifer C. Lucas. 2006. The Fairer Sex? American Politics Research 34(1):69-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05278038

Kahn, Kim F. 1993. Gender Differences in Campaign Messages: The Political Advertisements of Men and Women Candidates for U.S. Senate. Political Research Quarterly 46(3):481-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600303 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448944

Kahn, Kim F., and Patrick J. Kenney. 1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kaid, Linda L., and Anne Johnston. 1991. Negative versus Positive Television Advertising in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960-1988. Journal of Communication 41(3):53-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02323.x

Kam, Cindy D. 2007. Implicit Attitudes, Explicit Choices: When Subliminal Priming Predicts Candidate Preference. Political Behavior 29(3):343-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9030-0

Klotz, Robert. 1998. Virtual Criticism: Negative Advertising on the Internet in the 1996 Senate Races. Political Communication 15(3):347-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846098198939

Krebs, Timothy B., and David B. Holian. 2007. Competitive Positioning, Deracialization, and Attack Speech: A Study of Negative Campaigning in the 2001 Los Angeles Mayoral Election. American Politics Research 35(1):123-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X06292320

Lau, Richard R., and Gerald M. Pomper. 2001. Negative Campaigning by U.S. Senate Candidates. Party Politics 7(1):69-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068801007001004

Lau, Richard R., and Gerald M. Pomper. 2004. Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2007. The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment. Journal of Politics 69(4): 1176-1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x

Medvic, Stephen K. 2001. Political Consultants in Congressional Elections. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Peterson, David A.M., and Paul A. Djupe. 2005. When Primary Candidates Go Negative: The Determinants of Campaign Negativity. Political Research Quarterly 58(1):45-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3595594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800104

Plasser, Fritz, and Gunda Plasser. 2002. Global Political Campaigning: A Worldwide Analysis of Campaign Professionals and their Practices. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Sabato, Larry. 1981. The Rise of Political Consultants: New Ways of Winning Elections. New York: Basic Books.

Scammell, Margaret. 1998. The Wisdom of the War Room: U.S. Campaigning and Americanization. Media, Culture & Society 20:251-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344398020002006

Sellers, Patrick J. 1998. Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns. American Political Science Review 92(1):159-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585935

Shea, Daniel M., and Michael John Burton. 2001. Campaign Craft: The Strategies, Tactics, and Art of Political Campaign Management. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Skaperdas, Stergios, and Bernard Grofman. 1995. Modeling Negative Campaigning. American Political Science Review 89(1):49-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2083074

Theilmann, John, and Allen Wilhite. 1998. Campaign Tactics and the Decision to Attack. Journal of Politics 60(4):1050-1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647730

Thurber, James A., and Candice J. Nelson, eds. 2000. Campaign Warriors: Political Consultants in Elections. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Tinkham, Spencer F., and Ruth Ann Weaver-Lariscy. 1995. Incumbency and Its Perceived Advantage: A Comparison of 1982 and 1990 Congressional Advertising Strategies. Political Communication 12(3):291-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1995.9963075

Weaver-Lariscy, Ruth Ann, and Spencer F. Tinkham. 1996. Advertising Message Strategies in U.S. Congressional Campaigns: 1982, 1990. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 18:53-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.1996.10505040

Downloads

Published

2012-04-01

Issue

Vol. 33: Spring 2012

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.