negative advertising and campaign strategy

8/9/2019 Negative Advertising and Campaign Strategy

1/36

Negative Advertising and Campaign Strategy:An Analysis of Negative Advertising in the 2000 Presidential Election

Molly McCartney

Creighton University

Introduction


2/36

An important aspect of political science is the analysis of political campaigns.

ne of the most infl!ential areas of political campaigning is televised political

advertising. "he #ay a candidate chooses to relay a message to the American p!$lic %i.e.&

negative political advertisements& positive political advertisements& etc.' is almost as

impactf!l as #here %i.e.& s#ing states& small television mar(ets& etc.' that candidate airs

his)her message. *or e+ample& in the 2000 election& ,!sh ran a very strong negative

campaign in So!th Carolina& $!t not in "e+as. "his leads !s to #onder #hy a candidate-s

campaign strategy is form!lated the #ay it is. n order to gain a $etter !nderstanding of

the $ehaviors involved in television political advertising& an important /!estion is& n the

2000 Presidential Election& #hy did 1eorge ,!sh choose to r!n negative television

advertisements in some media mar(ets and not others34

"his /!estion is #orth addressing for many reasons. *irst& #ith the n!m$er of

negative ads on the rise& it is important to gain an !nderstanding into #hy some

candidates find negative ads to $e s!ch a !sef!l part of political campaigning. Second&

many voters report disli(e for negative ads& so it is important to analy5e #hy candidates

#o!ld choose to r!n advertisements to #hich the voting p!$lic often has a negative

response. "hird& most candidates do not r!n the same advertisements in all 6MAs.

,eca!se of this& it is important to analy5e #hy candidates choose to r!n negative ads in

some 6MAs and not in others.

Negative political advertising is an area of st!dy that many political scientists

str!ggle to !nderstand. "he research on the topic is often s(e#ed& #ith some political

scientists finding that negative ads are $eneficial to a candidate& and other political

scientists finding that negative ads have a detrimental effect on a candidate-s campaign.


3/36

t is common (no#ledge among US citi5ens that most people are disco!raged $y

negative ads. ,eca!se of this& it #o!ld seem that most candidates #o!ld refrain from this

(ind of advertising. 7o#ever& $eca!se candidates do contin!e to !se negative ads in their

campaigns& #e #ill e+amine the literat!re on this topic and hopef!lly find a common

thread regarding negative advertisements in political campaigning.

An ans#er to the /!estion n the 2000 Presidential Election& #hy did 1eorge

,!sh choose to r!n negative television advertisements in some media mar(ets and not

others34 co!ld $e very important to political science. ,y !nderstanding #hy the

President chose to r!n negative advertisements in some areas and not others in the 2000

Presidential Election& #e co!ld $etter !nderstand campaign strategy as a #hole. ,y

doing so& #e #ill $e a$le to predict ho# candidates #ill $ehave in political campaigns.

Literature Review

"he literat!re on negative advertising is split into three smaller gro!ps:

8' 7o# do people respond to negative ads3

2' 6o negative ads #or(3

9' 7o# does negative advertising relate to campaign strategy and strategic

decisionma(ing in a campaign3

n order to gain a $etter !nderstanding of the literat!re& it is important to e+amine all

three of these areas and their relation to negative advertising.

n the 8;


4/36

released for a #ee(end #hile serving a life sentence for m!rder. 7orton #as released as

part of a f!rlo!gh program intended to help reha$ilitate convicted felons. 7o#ever&

d!ring his short time o!t of prison& he committed rape and armed ro$$ery. 6emocratic

nominee and Massach!setts 1overnor Michael 6!(a(is #as attac(ed in the no#

infamo!s illie 7orton ad4 for his s!pport of the f!rlo!gh program that allo#ed the

felon to commit s!ch horri$le crimes on his short #ee(end release %#i(ipedia& 200='.

,eca!se there is s!ch a fervent de$ate over #hether or not negative ads are fair&4

it is important to e+amine the impressions left $y negative advertisements s!ch as the

illie 7orton ad. "he impressions left $y these ads are important to note not only for

o$servers of the ads& $!t also to those #ho create and air political spots4 %>ahn and

1eer& 8;;?. p. ;@'. "here have $een n!mero!s st!dies and articles spec!lating #hy

negative ads have $ecome s!ch a pop!lar method of campaigning in the United States.

Unfort!nately& many of these st!dies are s(e#ed& #ith some political scientists finding

that negative ads are $eneficial to a candidate& and other political scientists arg!ing that

negative ads have a detrimental effect on a candidate-s campaign as #ell as on voter

t!rno!t. Evidently& as >ahn and 1eer agreed& it is not clear ho# m!ch political ads

act!ally do infl!ence the p!$lic-s vie#s4 %>ahn and 1eer& 8;;?. p. ;9'.

As stated $y aforementioned research of >ahn and 1eer& given that the 90

second spot is a centerpiece of the modern campaign& #e need to increase o!r

!nderstanding of the impact of political campaigning4 %>ahn and 1eer& 200?. p. 880'. n

order to this& #e m!st first e+amine the !ni/!eness of negative ads. n m!ch of the

literat!re regarding political campaigning& researchers ma(e distinctions $et#een positive

and negative ads.


5/36

Negative ads are defined as attac( ads4 that foc!s on a candidate-s opponent&

rather than on the candidate him)herself. Positive ads& on the other hand& foc!s on the

candidate r!nning the ad and his)her a$ilities or stance on iss!es. esearchers f!rther the

distinctions $et#een negative and positive ads $y separating negative advertisements as

ads that attac( an opponent-s personal characteristics and)or those ads that attac( a

competitor-s stand on iss!es. As stated $y >ahn and 1eer& for most state and national

elections& contenders m!st decide #hat type of commercials to air on television. Among

their decisions are #hether to develop positive4 or negative4 spots and #hether they

#ant to stress the candidate-s vie#s on iss!es or the contender-s personal characteristics4

%>ahn and 1eer& 8;;?. p. ;B'. Personal negative ads may incl!de attac(s on the

competitor-s family life& ed!cation& past legal pro$lems& financial mishaps& etc. ss!e

negative ads& on the other hand& attac( an opponent-s stance on (ey iss!es of an election

%i.e.& stand on ta+ reform& a$ortion& p!$lic healthcare& etc.'.

How do people respond to negative ads?

According to Ansola$ehere and yengar& citi5ens #ho vie# negative

advertisements often say that they are less li(ely to vote $eca!se of the disco!ragement

im$edded $y the ad %Ansola$ehere and yengar& 8;;='. "his& of co!rse& raises the

/!estion& do some politicians p!rposely r!n negative ads in order to disco!rage a gro!p

of voters from sho#ing !p to the polls34 t #o!ld seem that a savvy politician may !se

negative ads in an area #here he)she generally loses the vote4 in order to disco!rage

voters from going to the polls and li(ely casting votes for his)her opponent& th!s

increasing his)her chances of victory. 7o#ever& according to atten$erg and ,rians& it

ma(es little sense to limit the goal of campaign ads to infl!ence t!rno!t& especially since


6/36

scholars have fo!nd that television advertising act!ally contri$!tes to political learning4

%atten$erg and ,rians& 8;;;. p.


7/36

,efore #e can as( the /!estion& do negative ads #or(34 #e m!st first e+amine

#hat is meant $y #or(4. "he effectiveness of a campaign is generally $ased on ho#

s!ccessf!l the campaign #as in gaining votes for a partic!lar candidate. 7o#ever& d!e to

the s(e#ed nat!re of research on negative advertising& #e #ill also disc!ss voter t!rno!t

as a meas!re of effectiveness.

After the 8;;B presidential race& ep!$lican candidate ,o$ 6ole #as as(ed #hy

he tho!ght voter t!rno!t #as so lo# in the election. 6ole cited negative campaigning as

the c!lprit& and said that people get t!rned off #ith negative ads4 %Novem$er


8/36

information from the National Election S!rvey from 8;;2 and 8;;B. t sho#s that

vie#ers #ho complained a$o!t negative ads act!ally had a t!rno!t rate of B higher than

those #ho did not complain a$o!t these ads. "his clearly strips credi$ility from the

demo$ili5ation theory s!pported $y researchers li(e Ansola$ehere and yengar.

TABLE 1. Percentage Turnout in 1992 and 1996, by Comments about Recall o

Positi!e and "egati!e Political Ads or Presidential Candidates

1992 1996

6id not mention negativeor positive ads @2.2 %=B2' B;.@ %=@@'

Said something a$o!t a

negative ad


9/36

it is easy to imagine an e+perimental s!$ect #ho feels contempt for politics

immediately after $eing e+posed to a negative ad and states s)he #ill not vote. Fet& #hen

election day arrives& the same person may decide to vote after assessing #hether the

difference $et#een the candidates is #orth the tro!$le of participating4 %atten$erg and

,rians& 8;;;. p.


10/36

!s!ally $ased off previo!slyheld partisan identification and)or sociological

characteristics %,ernard& Da5arsfeld and McPhee& 8;=?'. t #o!ld seem rational&

therefore& that negative advertisements #o!ld not have a tremendo!s impact on the

vie#ers #ith these previo!slyheld vie#s of a candidate. ,eca!se of this& research in the

area of political campaigns has $een largely ignored or marginali5ed in the past. Many

political scientists $elieved that individ!al votes and election o!tcomes Hco!ldI $e

predicted #itho!t acco!nting for the campaign4 %7illyg!s and Jac(man& 2009. p. =


11/36

7illyg!s and Jac(man agree #ith Camp$ell. "hey fo!nd that s!pport for a

candidate is largely infl!enced $y the political predispositions held $y an individ!al& and

is only marginally impacted $y campaign activities& s!ch as conventions& de$ates or

advertisements %7illyg!s and Jac(man& 2009'. *!rther& they fo!nd that an individ!al-s

predispositions #ill have a great impact on ho# he)she reacts to the campaign activities.

*or e+ample& a ep!$lican vie#ing a negative ad r!n $y a 6emocratic candidate #ill

li(ely have a more negative impression of the ad than a 6emocrat #atching the same ad.

7illyg!s and Jac(man f!rthered this idea $y arg!ing that not only #ill 6emocrats react

differently to an event than #ill a ep!$lican or ndependentG !ndecided 6emocrats #ill

react differently than #ill ,!sh 6emocrats& 1ore 6emocrats& and so on4 %7illyg!s and

Jac(man& 2009. p. =;0'.

hen >ahn and 1eer researched negative political advertising& their findings had

a !ni/!e /!ality. n 8;;0& the t#o researchers cond!cted a s!rvey of a 909 st!dent

ntrod!ction to American Politics class at Ari5ona State University. "he st!dents #ere

sho#n a tape of the N,C program Cheers4& incl!ding commercials. Some of the

commercials incl!ded act!al political advertisements the researchers had chosen& and the

tape had no evidence of $eing altered. "he s!$ects #ere told that the researchers #ere

st!dying vie#er reactions to primetime television programming& in order to shift the

foc!s from the political ads to the television program. *rom their research& >ahn and

1eer ded!cted that negative advertisements that directly attac( the traits of a candidate-s

opponent #ere the least effective spot. "his #as as opposed to commercials of negative

iss!es& positive iss!es& or positive traits %>ahn and 1eer& 8;;?'. "he !ni/!eness of the

st!dy lies in the fact that the s!$ects #ere more tolerant of attac( ads #hen they foc!sed


12/36

on specific iss!es& instead of personality traits. *!rther& the negative iss!e ads that

provided evidence to s!pport the attac( #ere more effective than those that did not. As

previo!sly stated& the ads that critici5ed the opponent-s personal traits or lifestyle choices

#ere fo!nd to $e co!nterprod!ctive and led to negative impressions of the attac(er& rather

than of the opponent $eing attac(ed %>ahn and 1eer& 8;;?'.

ith a $etter !nderstanding of ho# negative advertisements alter preconceived

vie#s of a candidate %or& in this case& do not alter those vie#s'& #e can no# e+amine ho#

negative advertising impacts impressions of !n(no#n candidates. Past research has

s!ggested that negative ads are often remem$ered $etter than positive ads %1arramone&

8;


13/36

him)her and ho# easily a candidate can gain access to the press for events s!ch as press

conferences and p!$lic anno!ncements.

"here #as some research& ho#ever& that #as foc!sed on campaign strategy and

negative advertising. >ahn and 1eer fo!nd that negative ads $ecame less effective #hen

co!pled #ith an opponent-s negative ads %>ahn and 1eer& 8;;?'. *or this reason& #e

co!ld spec!late that candidates may r!n negative ads #here an opponent is r!nning

negative ads in order to diminish the effectiveness of the opponent-s initial ad. Di(e#ise&

a candidate may r!n a negative ad in an area #here an opponent is not r!nning negative

ads in order to increase the ad-s effectiveness.

According to *reedman and 1oldstein& e+pos!re to television ads is a f!nction of

t#o things: the fre/!ency #ith #hich an advertisement is aired in a partic!lar media

mar(et and the /!antity of television vie#ing $y a partic!lar respondent4 %*reedman and

1oldstein& 8;;;. p. 88;8'. "hey go on to point o!t that #hen television vie#ing and the

vol!me of advertising increase& the pro$a$ility of e+pos!re rises. $vio!sly& if a person

#atches television every min!te of every day& he or she has no li(elihood of seeing a

partic!lar ad if it is not aired in his)her media mar(et.

*lo#ers& 7aynes and Crespin fo!nd that regarding the strategy of a candidate to

#in an election& he)she #ill chose a messaging tactic that attempts to !pset the e+isting

ran(ing and shift the $alance of the race $y slo#ing the moment!m of the lead candidate4

%*lo#ers& 7aynes and Crespin& 2009. p. 2B0'. hile the researchers do not relate this to

negative advertising& it is fair to ass!me that r!nning negative advertisements #o!ld $e

a$le to slo# the moment!m4 of a candidate $y pointing o!t fla#s of an opponent.

*!rther& if the negative ad garners eno!gh attention and helps shift votes to the candidate


14/36

r!nning the ad %as #as previo!sly cited as a possi$ility'& the negative ad co!ld help !pset

the e+isting ran(ing.4 Accordingly& #e can ass!me that campaign strategy is certainly

tied into the decision to r!n negative ads.

An important aspect of campaign strategy is the #eighing of costs against

$enefits. As #e have learned thro!gho!t the aforementioned research& negative

campaigning has clear dra#$ac(s. 7o#ever& it is the o$ of a campaign strategist to

decide if the $enefits of negative ads #ill o!t#eigh these dra#$ac(s eno!gh to ma(e

them #orth#hile. n 2002& 6avid 6amore arg!ed that negative campaigning may

provide candidates #ith an opport!nity to control their o#n& as #ell as their opponents-

messages %6amore& 2002'. *or e+ample& if a candidate chooses to r!n an attac( ad& they

can $e almost certain that their opponent #ill respond to the ad. n this sense& a candidate

can ma(e4 an opponent foc!s on an iss!e or topic& th!s controlling4 the opponent-s

messages. "his can $e seen as a $enefit for n!mero!s reasons& not the least of #hich is

the o$vio!s advantage of $eing a$le to form!late the direction the campaign. Another

advantage of this campaign strategy of negative advertising is that going negative can

provide candidates #ith a means of !ndermining their opponents s!pport4 %6amore&

2002. p. B@8' $y forcing an opponent to foc!s on an iss!e %in response to an attac( ad'

that may not have $een on his)her agenda prior to #hen the negative ad #as aired.

*!rther& research has sho#n that voters respond !nfavora$ly to candidates that !mp

aro!nd4 in iss!es& addressing a n!m$er of iss!es& rather than staying strongly foc!sed on

!st a handf!l of topics %6amore& 2002'. ,y forcing an opponent to respond to a negative

ad& a candidate may $e a$le to ma(e his)her challenger !mp aro!nd4& and th!sly lose

s!pport.


15/36

Another important iss!e to e+amine as far as #here candidates choose to r!n

negative ads relates to voter t!rno!t. Almost any political scientist #ill cite ed!cation&

strength of partisanship& campaign interest& religio!s $eliefs& and age %among other

things' as factors relating to voter t!rno!t. Perhaps candidates choose to r!n negative ads

$ased on a 6MA-s strength of partisanship& average voter age& etc. *reedman and

1oldstein foc!sed their research on the effects of ed!cation& gender& race& etc. #ith the

e+pos!re to negative advertisements. "hey then !sed this research to st!dy the effects on

voter t!rno!t. "he researchers fo!nd that the effects of negative ads are positive4

%*reedman and 1oldstein& 8;;;. p. 8200'. "he researchers s!mmari5ed that they $elieve

that e+pos!re to campaign ads& $oth positive and negative& have a generally positive

impact. 7o#ever& they stress that it is primarily the negative spots that have a

mo$ili5ing effect on voters4 %*reedman and 1oldstein& 8;;;. p. 8200'.

"he final& and perhaps most o$vio!s& iss!e to e+amine regarding campaign

strategy and negative ads is the competitiveness of an election. N!mero!s researchers

agree that strategic decisions made for campaigns often depend on the nat!rally

competitive nat!re of elections. *or years& research has s!pported the notion that

candidates !se their reso!rces $ased on strategic decisions. Namely& candidates #ill !se

their reso!rces in #ays that #ill $est increase their chances of #inning. As #e have

already disc!ssed& candidates often !se television advertisements %in this case& negative

ads' to garner attention and votes. t #o!ld follo#& therefore& that in a more competitive

race& a candidate #o!ld $e more li(ely to r!n negative advertisements& as the necessity

for votes in these areas are cr!cial. n his 8;@2 $oo(& 6avid Adamany agrees #ith this


16/36

idea and identifies the positive relationship $et#een competition and campaign

e+pendit!res %Adamany& 8;@2'.

More recent research points to competitiveness as a reason for increases in the

n!m$er of ads& as #ell. n his 8;;; article& 6aron Sha# e+amined the Electoral College

campaigning strategies $et#een 8;


17/36

campaigning& it is important to e+amine the impacts of specifically negative campaigns.

,y gaining a $etter !nderstanding of the impacts of these campaigns& #e can e+amine

#hy candidates seem to fall $ac( on negative advertising& especially #hen the vie#ing

p!$lic often vie# these (inds of ads as meanspirited or !nethical. *!rther& it is important

to !nderstand #hy candidates choose to r!n these negative ads in some media mar(ets&

#hile refraining from doing so in other mar(ets.

Hypothesis

Dittle research has $een done regarding #hy candidates choose certain areas to

r!n negative ads& and not others. *or this reason& can only ma(e spec!lations. As

previo!sly stated& certain factors s!ch as competitiveness of race& ed!cation& strength of

partisanship& campaign interest& religio!s $eliefs& and age %among other things' as are

often cited as having a direct relationship to voter t!rno!t. My spec!lations stem from a

more specified relation $et#een these factors and voter t!rno!t& and negative ad

campaigns.

,ased on all this research& hypothesi5e that in the 2000 election& ,!sh chose to

r!n more negative ads in 6MAs #here the race #as more competitive %specifically& in

mar(ets #here one candidate had $et#een ?0B0 percent of the vote'.

n essence& arg!e that there is a relationship $et#een negative ads and

competitiveness: the tighter the race in a 6MA& the greater the li(elihood that this #as an

area in #hich ,!sh ran negative ads.

$elieve that my hypothesis that ,!sh chose to r!n negative ads in 6MAs #ith

tighter races ma(es sense $eca!se it is #idely agreed that one of the most important

aspects of a presidential race is competitivenessG a candidate is !nli(ely to #aste money


18/36

and effort on a mar(et that is clearly going to $e a s!re #in for either candidate. *or

e+ample& it #o!ld $e fr!itless for ,!sh to have spent tho!sands of dollars on negative ads

in ashington& 6.C. as this 6MA is one of the most li$eral mar(ets in the co!ntry. "his

mar(et #as a s!re #in4 for the democratic candidate.

7o#ever& if ,!sh #as competing #ith 1ore in a close4 mar(et %#here one

candidate #as reported to have $et#een ?0B0 of the vote'& he #o!ld $e more li(ely to

r!n negative ads there $eca!se it #o!ld $e more li(ely that he #o!ld $e a$le to either tip

the scales in favor of himself& or to solidify the vote even more. ,eca!se of the

competitive nat!re of elections& and the important role competitiveness plays in

presidential elections& propose the hypothesis that ,!sh chose to r!n more negative ads

in 6MAs #here the race #as more competitive %specifically& in mar(ets #here one

candidate had $et#een ?0B0 percent of the vote'.

e+pect that my t#o varia$les %negative ads and competitiveness of mar(ets' #ill

have a direct relation& or covariation. anticipate that #hen there is a tighter race in a

6MA& there #ill also $e a higher n!m$er of negative ads r!n $y ,!sh. also $elieve that

the t#o varia$les are directly and ca!sally related. $elieve that ,!sh-s campaign choice

to r!n negative ads is dependent on ho# tight the race is in the respective mar(et. n

other #ords& the negative ads #ere r!n "ecauseof the competitiveness of the mar(etG a

mar(et did not $ecome a tight mar(et4 $eca!se of the n!m$er negative ads r!n there.

don-t $elieve that there is a matter of nonsp!rio!sness #here a third varia$le e+plains

high levels of $oth negative ads and competition.

Another independent varia$le that #o!ld have li(ed to e+amine is the n!m$er of

independent or !ndecided voters in each 6MA. ,ased off the research of >ahn and 1eer


19/36

%8;;?'& #hich arg!es that negative advertisements are effective& it #o!ld seem li(ely for

a candidate to r!n negative ads in these states that contain a large n!m$er of mismatched

partisans& !ndecided voters& or ndependents. *reedman and 1oldstein researched the

hypothesis that negative ads have a demo$ili5ing effect for ndependents. "hey fo!nd&

ho#ever& that there #as no sort of demo$ili5ing phenomenon associated #ith negative ad

campaigns and ndependent voters %*reedman and 1oldstein& 8;;;'.

>ahn and 1eer fo!nd that negative ads $ecame less effective #hen co!pled #ith

an opponent-s negative ads %>ahn and 1eer& 8;;?'. *or this reason& #e co!ld f!rther

spec!late that candidates may r!n negative ads #here an opponent is r!nning negative

ads in order to diminish the effectiveness of the opponent-s initial ad. Di(e#ise& a

candidate may r!n a negative ad in an area #here an opponent is not r!nning negative ads

in order to increase the ad-s effectiveness.

Unfort!nately& there is virt!ally no #ay to ac/!ire information on ho# many

independent or !ndecided reside in 6MAs& or even in different co!nties for that matter.

*or this reason& m!st ga!ge this information $y e+amining ho# tight4 races are in each

co!nty. n this analysis& =0 of the vote #o!ld $e the most competitive possi$le race.

As the vote totals diverge from =0 in either direction& then the race in that 6MA is less

competitive. "herefore& ass!me that ,!sh ran ads in areas #here the races #ere the

most competitive. ,y doing this& am ass!ming that many 6MAs #ith tight4 races are

competitive $eca!se of a large n!m$er of independent %and therefore s#aya$le4' voters

in these areas.

Additionally& as previo!sly stated& one of the most important aspects of a

presidential race is competitivenessG a candidate is !nli(ely to #aste money and effort on


20/36

a mar(et that is clearly going to $e a s!re #in for either candidate. ,eca!se of the

competitive nat!re of elections& and the important role competitiveness plays in

presidential elections& propose the hypothesis that ,!sh chose to r!n more negative ads

in 6MAs #here the race #as more competitive %specifically& in mar(ets #here one

candidate had $et#een ?0B0 percent of the vote'.

also $elieve that one of the #ays ,!sh ga!ged the competitiveness of a 6MA

#as $y e+amining the res!lts of past elections. Specifically& hypothesi5e that if a

mar(et had a tight race4 in 8;;B& ,!sh #o!ld $e more li(ely to r!n negative ads in these

6MAs in 2000.

Methods

n order to analy5e the /!estion& it is important to define the terms of the /!estion.

Negative Television Advertisementsare defined as any political television

advertisements that attac( an opponent-s personality traits or vie#s on

iss!es. *or the p!rposes of this paper& negative ads4 #ill have the same

meaning as negative political advertisements4.

Media Markets are defined $y their respective designated mar(et area

%6MA'. "hese mar(ets are identified $y the closest& largest city. "here

are 280 6MAs in the United States& #ith 8 $eing the largest mar(et of

Ne# For( City and 280 $eing the smallest mar(et of 1lendive& Montana.

chose the 2000 Presidential Election $eca!se it is the most recent dataset availa$le for

this proect. hile the 200? Presidential Election #o!ld have $een interesting to analy5e&

datasets from this election have not yet $een released. Additionally& #anted to foc!s on

the #inning candidate-s advertising. *!rther& feel that the 2000 dataset #ill provide


21/36

e/!ally interesting and telling information and analysis opport!nities as its 200?

co!nterpart.

ac/!ired my information from the 2000 Presidential Election iscAds dataset

ac/!ired from the isconsin Advertising Proect at the University of isconsin

Madison-s department of Political Science. My independent varia$le #as the level of

election competitiveness in vario!s 6MAs. My dependent varia$le #as the negative

advertisements. My !nit of analysis #as the vario!s 6MAs #here the advertisements

ran. Altho!gh there are 280 6MAs& chose to !se the top @= as collected $y the

isconsin Advertising Proect in my research. did this $eca!se over


22/36

to find o!t the co!nty corresponding to each 6MA& !sed maps fo!nd in the

aforementioned reference $oo( and fo!nd the dominant city in each mar(et& and then

fo!nd the co!nty to #hich that city $elonged. then p!t that information into the chart

located in Appendi+ A. !sed the Koted ,!sh4 information as a varia$le in my

crossta$ %renamed as ,!sh Kote4'.

n order to analy5e my data& first ran a crossta$ #ith ad tone4 %respondents

vie#ed n!mero!s political ads and ans#ered #hether they tho!ght the ad #as attac(4

promote4 not applica$le4 or not s!re4' as the dependent varia$le and mar(et location

as the independent varia$le. chose to r!n ro# percentages& rather than col!mn

percentages. ,y doing this& co!ld determine the percentage of negative ads %as a

percentage of total ads' that #ere r!n in each mar(et. *or e+ample& in the Charlotte

mar(et& =8 of the total ads r!n #ere negative or attac( ads.

After collecting this information& then entered my o#n dataset into SPSS #ith

three varia$les: the negative ads %as !st descri$ed'& mar(et location %the top @= 6MAs'&

and the varia$le titled ,!sh Kote4.

Ne+t& had to analy5e my hypothesis in order to inp!t a ne# varia$le. According

to my hypothesis& =0 of the vote #o!ld $e the most competitive possi$le race. As the

vote totals diverge from =0 in either direction& then the race in that 6MA is less

competitive. "herefore& ass!me that ,!sh ran ads in areas #here the races #ere the

most competitive. n order to r!n a regression #ith this in mind& s!$tracted the ,!sh

vote from =0 and then made all the negative n!m$ers positive. entered in these

n!m$ers as the varia$le compete4. *or e+ample& in Al$any the ,!sh vote #as 99.=.

s!$tracted 99.= from =0 %the most competitive race' and ended !p #ith a compete4


23/36

varia$le of 8B.=. "herefore& in Al$any& the race #as 8B.= !nits a#ay from $eing

a$sol!tely competitive.4 n >no+ville& ho#ever& the ,!sh vote #as =@.@. s!$tracted

=@.@ from =0 and ended !p #ith @.@. made that n!m$er positive and fo!nd o!t that

in >no+ville& the race #as @.@ !nits a#ay from $eing a$sol!tely competitive4.

>no+ville& therefore& had a more competitive race than Al$any. ,ased on my hypothesis&

e+pect that ,!sh ran more negative ads in >no+ville than in Al$any.

*inally& $eca!se had nominal %negative ads' and ratio %compete4' varia$les&

ran a $ivariate regression and scatter plot for these varia$les. My first regression had the

dependent varia$le as compete4 and the independent varia$le as the percentage of attac(

ads.

n addition to the ,!sh vote& also considered ho# the previo!s Presidential

election impacted ,!sh-s decision to r!n negative ads in different mar(ets. As stated in

my hypothesis& $elieve that ,!sh !sed the 8;;B election to ga!ge the competitiveness of

a mar(et in the 2000 election. According to my hypothesis& $elieve that if 6ole had a

tight race in certain 6MAs in 8;;B& ,!sh #o!ld $e more li(ely to r!n negative ads in

these mar(ets. *or this reason& fo!nd it necessary to r!n the same regressions #ith ne#

varia$les: compete4 and 6ole votes4 from the 8;;B Presidential election. "hese ne#

varia$les #ere $ased on the ass!mption that perhaps ,!sh chose to r!n negative ads in

6MAs #here 6ole e+perienced tight races4 #ith Clinton d!ring the 8;;B Presidential

ace.

n order to do this& !sed the 8;;B version of America Kotes and fo!nd the

percentage of votes cast for 6ole in each 6MA $y pairing the mar(et #ith its correlating


24/36

co!nty %$ased on the graph made for my 2000 data'. *rom this information& made the

chart located in Appendi+ ,.

After collecting this information& once again entered my o#n dataset into SPSS

#ith three varia$les: the negative ads %as previo!sly descri$ed'& mar(et location %the top

@= 6MAs'& and the varia$le titled 6ole Kote4.

,eca!se had nominal %negative ads' and ratio %6ole compete4' varia$les& ran

a $ivariate regression and scatter plot for these varia$les. My second regression had the

dependent varia$le as 6ole compete4 and the independent varia$le as the percentage of

attac( ads. "he latter regression helped me $etter analy5e my data& as it #as more

concise than the 6ole Kote4)attac( ad regression.

Analysis

,eca!se of the importance of competitiveness in elections& propose the

hypothesis that ,!sh chose to r!n more negative ads in 6MAs #here the race #as more

competitive %specifically& in mar(ets #here one candidate had $et#een ?0B0 percent of

the vote'.

*ollo#ing my hypothesis& ran t#o scatterplots to determine the relationship

$et#een the percentage of negative ads and the level of competitiveness in the top @=

6MAs %or their respective co!nties'.

My first scatterplot displays the relationship $et#een ,!sh-s choice to r!n

negative ads in certain 6MAs in 2000 and the competitiveness of those 6MAs in the

2000 election. "he second scatterplot e+amines the relationship $et#een ,!sh-s choice

to r!n negative ads in certain 6MAs in the 2000 election and the competitiveness of

those 6MAs in the 8;;B election.


25/36

#ra$% &1'(

Relations%i$ Bet)een "egati!e Ads in 2*** Election and Com$etiti!eness o 2*** Election

.40.0030.0020.0010.000.00ElectionCometitiveness3020100

+ariable &2'( Bus% Com$etiti!eness(

+ariable Coeicient tandard

Error

tandardi-ed

Coeicient

T

+alue

igniicance Adusted

r /uare

Constant2=.88@ 8.?@2 [email protected]=< .000

Com$ete .09< .80? .0?9 .9B< .9B< .082

Slope of the line: y 2=.88@ .09


26/36

ashington& 6.C. therefore had one of the lo#est percentages of negative ads. 7o#ever&

can infer from the graph that or the ads r!n in the ashington 6.C. 6MA&

appro+imately 20 of the ads #ere negative.

,eca!se ass!me that #ith a more competitive race %the closer the election

competitiveness4 a+is points are to 0' negative campaign ads #ill increase& #as hoping

to find a large gro!ping of points aro!nd the 90=0 area of Ad "one and the 020 area

of compete.

"he largest gro!ping of points is located #here election competitiveness #as

$et#een 08= and negative ads #ere $et#een 20?0. "his again reflects my

hypothesis that a more competitive race #ill res!lt in a greater n!m$er of negative ads

r!n in that media mar(et.

hile the scatterplot helps !s !nderstand the relationship $et#een election

competitiveness in 2000 and the percentage of negative ads r!n in that election& it is also

important to loo( at the statistics in this relationship. "he coefficient of .09< tells me

that for every point a#ay from competitiveness& the proportion of negative ads decreases

$y .09


27/36

$et#een negative ads in 6MAs and the competitiveness of those 6MAs for the same year

is not as strong as the literat!re s!ggested.

Ne+t& ran a second scatterplot #ith Ad "one %negative advertisements' and

election competitiveness. As previo!sly stated& the compete varia$le is a meas!re of

distance in the 6ole vote from =0G n this case& the lo#er the n!m$er& the more

competitive the race.

"he follo#ing scatterplot sho#s the relationship $et#een the overall votes cast for

6ole in the top @= 6MAs %or their respective co!nties'. *ollo#ing my hypothesis&

ass!me that for varia$les closer to 0 on the compete a+is& there #ill $e a more dense

collection of points $et#een 20?0 on the Negative Ad a+is.


28/36

#ra$% &2'(

Relations%i$ Bet)een "egati!e Ads in 2*** Election and Com$etiti!eness o 1996 Election

.40.0030.0020.0010.000.00ElectionCometitiveness3020100

+ariable &0'( ole Com$ete(

+ariable Coeicien

t

tandar

d Error

tandardi-e

d

Coeicient

T

+alue

igniicanc

e

Aduste

d

r /uare

Constan

t

2?.;?9 8.=8B 8B.?=

8

.000

Com$ete .08; .0;? .02? .20? .


29/36

$eing an a$sol!tely competitive race'. n essence& ashington& 6.C. had the least

competitive Presidential race of the top @= 6MAs in 8;;B %6ole Hep!$licanI v. Clinton

H6emocratI'. According to my hypothesis& #o!ld ass!me that ashington& 6.C.

therefore had one of the lo#est percentages of negative ads in 2000. 7o#ever& can infer

from the graph that of the ads r!n in the ashington 6.C. 6MA& appro+imately 28 of

those ads #ere negative or attac( ads.

,eca!se ass!me that #ith a more competitive race %the closer the compete a+is

points are to 0' negative campaign ads #ill increase& #as hoping to find a large

gro!ping of points aro!nd the 20?0 area of Negative Ads and the 020 area of

compete. "he largest gro!ping of points is located #here election competitiveness #as

$et#een 08= and negative ads #ere $et#een 8= and 9=. "his reflects my

hypothesis that a more competitive race #ill res!lt in a greater n!m$er of negative ads

r!n in that media mar(et the ne+t election.

"he first independent varia$le& election competitiveness& sho#s a positive ca!sal

relationship #ith negative advertising. "he coefficient of .08; tells me that for every

point a#ay from competitiveness& the proportion of negative ads decreases $y .08;.

"he ad!sted S/!are tells me ho# m!ch of the variation in my dependent

varia$le %negative ads' can $e e+plained $y the independent varia$le %in this case&

election competitiveness4'. Unfort!nately& the lo# s/!are of .089 indicates that

there is no relationship $et#een the independent and dependent varia$les& s!ggesting that

the n!m$er of negative ads in a 6MA cannot $e e+plained $y the competitiveness of the

race in said mar(et. "he significance of this varia$le indicates that it is not statistically

significant. "he significance of .


30/36

relationship of this magnit!de if the n!ll #ere tr!e. n similarity #ith my first scatterplot

and statistics& this relationship $et#een negative ads r!n in certain 6MAs in the 2000

election and the competitiveness of said 6MAs in the 8;;B election is not as strong as the

literat!re s!ggested.

n $oth of the regressions and scatterplots that ran& fo!nd that there #as

virt!ally no relationship $et#een negative advertisements and election competitiveness.

Unfort!nately& these #ea( relationships mean that my hypothesis #as disproved. ,!t

ho#ever disappointing this may $e as a researcher& it is e+citing as a political scientist

$eca!se it means that the maority of information on campaign strategy and negative

advertising is fact!ally incorrect.

Conclusion

n their 2009 $oo(& Political Advertising the 2000 Elections& highly respected

political science researchers Joel ivlin and >en 1oldstein arg!ed that #hen a race is

more competitive& the n!m$er of political advertisements increases dramatically

%1oldstein L ivlin& 2009'. "his proposed ca!sal relationship $et#een competitiveness

and political advertisements %in this case& negative ads' is s!pported $y the arg!ments of

other researchers& as #ell %Adamany& 8;@2G Sha#& 8;;;G Memmett& 200?'. 7o#ever&

thro!gh my analysis& have disproved my original hypothesis that in the 2000 election&

,!sh chose to r!n more negative ads in 6MAs #here the race #as more competitive.

*!rther& thro!gh this analysis& have concl!sively proven that there is no relationship

$et#een election competitiveness and the n!m$er of negative ads r!n in certain 6MAs.

hile do not disp!te the efforts of previo!s research on this topic& nor the idea

that competitiveness seems to $e the most logical and o$vio!s e+planation for increased


31/36

negative ads& my findings concl!sively prove that these t#o trends are not ca!sally

lin(ed.

"hese !ni/!e findings are important to political science $eca!se they ref!te the

maority of hypotheses regarding election competitiveness and campaign strategy. ,oth

older and more recent articles point to competitiveness as a factor determining political

advertisement placement. 7o#ever& thro!gh the a$ove analysis& #e can see that there is

no relationship $et#een the n!m$er of negative political ads and the level of

competitiveness in an election.

"hese ne# findings raise n!mero!s /!estions& the most o$vio!s $eing #hy do

political candidates chose to r!n negative ads r!n in some places and not others34 "his

/!estion points to the important& and apparently mis!nderstood& area of campaign

strategy. Clearly& f!t!re research needs to foc!s on alternative reasons for increased

n!m$ers of negative ads in different areas of the co!ntry. ith the n!m$er of negative

ads on the rise& it is important to gain an !nderstanding into #hy some candidates find

negative ads to $e s!ch a !sef!l part of political campaigning. Additionally& many voters

report disli(e for negative ads& so it is important to analy5e #hy candidates #o!ld choose

to r!n advertisements to #hich the voting p!$lic often has a negative response.


32/36

eferences

illie 7orton4 i(ipedia.com. nternet. etrieved Septem$er 82& 200= from:http:))en.#i(ipedia.org)#i(i)illieO7orton

6avid Detterman Sho# transcript from Novem$er


33/36

A Handbook of Contemporary American Election Statistics.

Memmott& M. %ct 89& 200?'. Commercial ar Centers on 80 States. /SA 0oday#

Sha#& 6. %8;;;'. "he Methods ,ehind the Madness: Presidential Electoral College

Strategies& 8;


34/36

Das Kegas Clar( ??.@ =8.9

De+ington *ayette =8.@ ??.

negative advertising and campaign strategy

Documents