How the Negative Trumps the Positive in Politics
ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2012) — Negatively framed political attitudes ("I
don't like Romney") are stronger than positively framed attitudes ("I like
Romney"), and this effect is strengthened when people think more deeply
about the issues involved.
That is the finding of a paper published October 25 in the British Journal
of Social Psychology by Dr George Bizer (Union College, New York), Dr Iris
Žeželj (University of Belgrade) and Jamie Luguri (Yale University).
The researchers presented participants with information about two fictional
(though ostensibly real) candidates -- one conservative, one liberal --
for a position on a government board. After reading about the two candidates,
some participants were asked if they 'supported' or 'opposed' the liberal
candidate and some were asked if they 'supported' or 'opposed' the
conservative. When the candidates were vying for a local government board,
participants who were led to frame their opinions negatively -- regardless of
their
underlying preference -- expressed more certainty about their attitudes
than did participants who were led frame their opinions positively. When the
candidates were vying for a distant government board, the effect did not
emerge.
Follow-up experiments replicated these findings: Experiment 2 showed that
opposers were more certain than supporters, but only when the participants
were able to think carefully about the candidates, while Experiment 3 showed
that the effect generalized to perceived importance.
Dr Bizer says: "Our prior research showed that framing an opinion in terms
of opposition yields stronger attitudes than does framing it in terms of
support. The most interesting point from our latest research is that this
effect is actually stronger when people process the messages more deeply --
when they are motivated and have been able to think about the issue. But when
people are not motivated and able, the effect goes away. So, perhaps
counter-intuitively, the people who care the most about the issues or
candidates
seem more likely to be affected by the bias."
===========================================
Discovery News
Why Do Negative Political Ads Work?
Seventy percent of presidential ads have been negative so far this year.
Why?
Emily Sohn
May 16, 2012
THE GIST
* Negative ads don't affect voter turnout and they don't change minds
of voters who are already decided.
* Negative ads do inspire people to seek out more information about
the issues.
* We are emotionally wired to pay attention to negative information.
In a _new political ad_
(http://www.youtube.com/embed/sWiSFwZJXwE?feature=player_embedded) Mitt Romney
is portrayed as a job-destroyer who is out of
touch with the American working class. With the message, Barack Obama's
campaign takes part in an age-old political tradition -- the attack ad.
And even though voters overwhelmingly say they hate negative political
advertising, attack ads are becoming more common -- presumably because they
sway voters.
Why do negative political ads work?
Reasons, experts say, are emotional and psychological -- and partly up for
debate. Studies show that negativity doesn’t affect voter turnout. Nor does
it sway those who are already convinced one way or the other.
Instead, the power of negativity may lie in its ability to compel people to
seek out more information about candidates, in turn influencing the
undecided.
"Advertising matters at the margins," said political scientist Erika
Franklin Fowler, director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks
political
advertising at Wesleyan University in Conn. "We never see ads that take a
candidate from 20 percent to 70 percent of the vote. But when you have a
country that is divided 50/50, every percentage point counts. That's where
advertising makes a difference."
Negativity has been around as long as elections have, Fowler said, but the
practice has recently become more prevalent than ever. In a 2008 study,
Fowler's research group looked at hundreds of thousands of presidential ads
from the year before and found negativity in nine percent of those ads.
A more recent study found that 70 percent of presidential ads were negative
through April 22 of this year. The huge jump is partly because of a rise
in activity by interest groups, but more than half of this year's
candidate-sponsored ads have focused on negative details about opponents.
One reason that negative messages are so compelling is that we are
emotional creatures, wired to pay attention to harmful information, said Joel
Weinberger, a psychologist at Adelphi University in New York and owner of
Implicit Strategies, a consulting firm that investigates unconscious
influences
on behavior.
"Think of our ancestors on the African savannah," he said. "If you miss a
leopard, it's over for you. If you miss a deer, oh well, you're hungry.
People are more focused on negative information. People stop for a car wreck,
but there are no traffic jams for beautiful flowers. "
"In negative ads, they make a narrative for you that is supposed to brand
the person," he added. "People say, 'I hate negative ads, they do nothing
for me,' while unconsciously processing them. Emotion trumps cognition."
In a study for a 2008 appearance on Good Morning America, Weinberger and
colleague Drew Westen found that undecided voters became subliminally hung up
on words used in negative political ads, even though they insisted that
the ads had no effect on them.
The test that the researchers used asked people to name the colors of
various words. And even though participants are not supposed to pay attention
to
the actual words, it takes them longer to respond if the words hold
emotional resonance for them.
Six months later, the researchers found, adjectives used to describe
candidates in ads still held power over viewers.
The best way for a candidate to combat negative ads, Weinberger said, is to
immediately fire back. Doing nothing allows his opponent’s message to sink
in, whether true or not.
As grating as they can be, negative ads aren't all bad, Fowler said.
Studies show that negative ads contain more information, and they inspire
people
to seek out even more knowledge about the issues.
"Negativity has informational benefits, especially for citizens that don't
necessarily tune into politics," she said. "It's more beneficial for
democracy if citizens show up for polls better informed as a consequence."
=====================================
_Do Negative Ads Work Better on Women? - US News & World Report_
(http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/12/do-negative-ads-work-better-on-women)
www.usnews.com › _News_
(http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.usnews.com/news&rct=j&sa=X&ei=MnWNUJzEMuvliwKA5IH4CQ&ved=0CB8Q6QUoADAA&q=why+negative+
ads+work&usg=AFQjCNGv_Lut8FRhwzAEVisBXSLCsj9WxQ) _Cached_
(http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Umnov_NYNKMJ:www.usnews.com/news/article
s/2012/10/12/do-negative-ads-work-better-on-women+why+negative+ads+work&cd=1
&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
You +1'd this publicly. _Undo_ (http://www.google.com/#)
Oct 12, 2012 – A new study has found that women recall negative news
stories better than men.
====================================
_Why Positive Ads Do Not Work | Beyond Madison Avenue_
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=why+negative+ads+work&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&ved=0CEcQ
FjAHOAo&url=http://www.talentzoo.com/beyond-madison-ave/news/Why-Positive-Ad
s-Do-Not-Work/13232.html&ei=jHaNUMHQKeeBiwLF4IGgBw&usg=AFQjCNHIqX2fanCi4r_s8
7mmoAcxzqnwTA)
www.talentzoo.com/beyond-madison...
Why Positive Ads Do Not Work
Why Positive Ads Do Not Work By: _Dwayne W. Waite Jr._
(http://www.talentzoo.com/beyond-madison-ave/in_the_news.php?authorID=638)
Dwayne W Waite,
Jr Why Positive Ads Do Not Work By: _Dwayne W. Waite Jr._
(http://www.talentzoo.com/beyond-madison-ave/in_the_news.php?authorID=638)
Another election year, another wave of poorly done political
advertisements. As we candidates push their position through TV ads, radio,
web video,
and more, the point becomes clear: nothing works better than hyping the
negative. Political advertising is different than advertising products and
services, for the reason that determining the value, the cost/benefit
analysis,
is not as tangible. Political advertising focuses on the candidates' ideas
and policies, past voting record, and probability that they'll stick to the
record. Political brain trusts and research firms, time and time again,
preach that the average voter is sick of negative ads, yet we continue to see
them. The 2008 election saw the most negative ad spots at the time. This
race, with the pedestal that the Supreme Court provided it, will have the
money to blow past the number of negative ads before the general election
even takes place.
Why do negative ads work better? The answer to that question lies with how
humans behave to rewards and punishment. There is an ongoing debate about
the effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcement. Do people behave
the way we want when we reward them for doing right, versus punishing them
when they do something wrong? Traditionally, the answer has been the
latter. We tend to respond faster when we know there is a negative outcome for
a
different behavior. We build an averse reaction to fear, uncertainty, and
conflict, so we choose an option or behavior that doesn't provide those
options.
Are not these ads doing the same?
Negative ads hype up fear. The ads show what Americans have to be afraid
of, or outraged with, their opponents' actions.
The negative advertisements jump on the unknown. And with research behind
our risk-averse society, we will be more apt to feel an uneasiness with a
candidate that has uncertain qualities brought up about them, regardless if
the candidate producing the ad doesn't reveal better qualifications.
It is not that positive campaigns can't work, but negative ads work
better. Of course, we would all love to see a line of candidates with each one
talking only about themselves and their accomplishments. But will that drive
a voting base to action? Probably not. With an air of positivity around
each and every candidate, a complacency could develop with the voters. One
voter could be imagined saying, "Well, if they are all good, then it doesn't
really matter which one wins."
Thus, negative ads are used to show the differences and scare voters into
picking the better alternative.
Can the political advertising arena change? Yes, it can. Because so many
voters rely on advertising and sponsored content to get their information,
voters can use independent sources and learn about the candidates
themselves. In advertising, we have "social media gurus" who talk about the Age
of
the Consumer; why can't it also be the Age of the Voter? Learning the ins and
outs of a business is not too different than learning about the candidates.
As long as you care, that is. If not, enjoy the attack ads.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
