Only available on StudyMode Text Preview
Do Negative Campaign Ads Mobilize or Demobilize voters?
The rise of negative campaign ads have had a dramatic effect on political
campaigns and have given rise to the debate of whether or not negative ads or attack
ads mobilize voters or do these ads demobilize the American electorate? Negative
campaign ads through the stimulation hypothesis have an invigorating effect on the
electorate and in fact mobilize voters (Martin). The study of Ansolabehere and Iyengar
in 1995 on campaign advertisement which attempted to prove that negative ads
demobilize voters is in fact flawed and can be disputed. There is no evidence in fact that
negative advertising depresses voter turnout, but in fact it increases voter turnout
through stimulation as a result of these negative ads (Martin). The analysis and
experiments of the below political scientists will show that in fact the argument put forth
by Iyengar and Ansolabehere is flawed and that in fact negative campaign ads stimulate
voters and create a greater voter turnout in elections (Wattenberg, and Brians 891-899).
Supporters of the demobilization hypothesis claim that negative ads undermine
political efficacy and make it less likely that citizens will vote (Martin). Ansolabehere and
Iyengar, supporters of the demobilization hypothesis, created a number of experiments
on a set of California elections as well as a study of the turnout in the 1992 senate
elections to examine the effect television commercials have and how negative
campaign commercials influence voter participation. In their belief, negative attack ads
demobilize the electorate and create a lower probability of voting amongst citizens
(Martin). This study as done by Ansolabehere and Iyengar did support the idea that
negative campaign ads provided information to citizens but it still decreased voter
turnout. The studies found that subjects who were shown a single negative
advertisement claimed that they would be less likely to vote and had negative attitudes
towards government. If these same subjects were shown a positive advertisement, the
effect was reversed in their experiment. The difference between effects of positive and
negative ads was roughly 5% (Wattenberg, and Brians 891-899). These claims became
greatly scrutinized following their experiment. To follow up on their experiment, they
used an analysis or campaign tone on aggregate voter turnout and vote roll-off in the
1992 senate elections (Wattenberg, and Brians 891-899).
This study was done without taking into consideration the effect that education of
citizens had on voting. The more educated a citizen was, the more likely they were to
vote, which in turn questions the validity of the study because this was not considered
amongst the test subjects (Martin). Also, these results were not replicated with further
similar experiments, which does not provide a stable amount of information to base the
claims upon.
Negative campaigns may be somewhat of a guilty pleasure for Americans- they
claim to dislike them, but inadvertently are drawn to them in much the same way that
shoppers find themselves drawn to the tabloids in the checkout aisle (Martin). One issue
with many of these survey-based studies is that no accurate measurement of exposure
to advertising has been created. Freedman and Goldstein conducted a study in which
they were able to survey citizens about when they typically watch television and then
measure how much advertisement they were actually exposed to. Once they were able
to measure this following their survey in 1999, it could be determined that exposure to
negative attack ads actually increases voter turnout. These negative advertisements
may in fact stimulate voters as opposed to turn them off from political participation.
Negative advertising provides potential voters with a significant amount or relevant...
The rise of negative campaign ads have had a dramatic effect on political
campaigns and have given rise to the debate of whether or not negative ads or attack
ads mobilize voters or do these ads demobilize the American electorate? Negative
campaign ads through the stimulation hypothesis have an invigorating effect on the
electorate and in fact mobilize voters (Martin). The study of Ansolabehere and Iyengar
in 1995 on campaign advertisement which attempted to prove that negative ads
demobilize voters is in fact flawed and can be disputed. There is no evidence in fact that
negative advertising depresses voter turnout, but in fact it increases voter turnout
through stimulation as a result of these negative ads (Martin). The analysis and
experiments of the below political scientists will show that in fact the argument put forth
by Iyengar and Ansolabehere is flawed and that in fact negative campaign ads stimulate
voters and create a greater voter turnout in elections (Wattenberg, and Brians 891-899).
Supporters of the demobilization hypothesis claim that negative ads undermine
political efficacy and make it less likely that citizens will vote (Martin). Ansolabehere and
Iyengar, supporters of the demobilization hypothesis, created a number of experiments
on a set of California elections as well as a study of the turnout in the 1992 senate
elections to examine the effect television commercials have and how negative
campaign commercials influence voter participation. In their belief, negative attack ads
demobilize the electorate and create a lower probability of voting amongst citizens
(Martin). This study as done by Ansolabehere and Iyengar did support the idea that
negative campaign ads provided information to citizens but it still decreased voter
turnout. The studies found that subjects who were shown a single negative
advertisement claimed that they would be less likely to vote and had negative attitudes
towards government. If these same subjects were shown a positive advertisement, the
effect was reversed in their experiment. The difference between effects of positive and
negative ads was roughly 5% (Wattenberg, and Brians 891-899). These claims became
greatly scrutinized following their experiment. To follow up on their experiment, they
used an analysis or campaign tone on aggregate voter turnout and vote roll-off in the
1992 senate elections (Wattenberg, and Brians 891-899).
This study was done without taking into consideration the effect that education of
citizens had on voting. The more educated a citizen was, the more likely they were to
vote, which in turn questions the validity of the study because this was not considered
amongst the test subjects (Martin). Also, these results were not replicated with further
similar experiments, which does not provide a stable amount of information to base the
claims upon.
Negative campaigns may be somewhat of a guilty pleasure for Americans- they
claim to dislike them, but inadvertently are drawn to them in much the same way that
shoppers find themselves drawn to the tabloids in the checkout aisle (Martin). One issue
with many of these survey-based studies is that no accurate measurement of exposure
to advertising has been created. Freedman and Goldstein conducted a study in which
they were able to survey citizens about when they typically watch television and then
measure how much advertisement they were actually exposed to. Once they were able
to measure this following their survey in 1999, it could be determined that exposure to
negative attack ads actually increases voter turnout. These negative advertisements
may in fact stimulate voters as opposed to turn them off from political participation.
Negative advertising provides potential voters with a significant amount or relevant...
Show More
Please sign up to read full document.
