Editing Negative campaigning (section)

== Advantages ==
Sponsors of overtly negative campaigns often cite reasons to support [[mass communication]] of negative ideas. The [[Office of National Drug Control Policy]] uses negative campaigns to alert the public about serious health risks. Similar negative campaigns have been used to rebut mass marketing by [[tobacco companies]] or to discourage [[drunk driving]]. In politics, proponents of negative campaigning argue that voters have a right to know the truth about a candidate even if the information is unfavorable. In other words, if an opponent is crooked or unethical, then the public should be informed of the same.

[[Martin Wattenberg (political scientist)|Martin Wattenberg]] and [[Craig Brians]], of the [[University of California]], Irvine, considered in their study whether negative campaigning mobilizes or alienates voters. They concluded that data used by [[Stephen Ansolabehere]] in a 1994 American Political Science Review article to advance the hypothesis that negative campaigning demobilizes voters was flawed.

A subsequent study done by Ansolabehere and [[Shanto Iyengar]] in 1995<ref name="Ansolabehere, S. 1995">{{cite book |last1=Ansolabehere |first1=S. |last2=Iyengar |first2=S. |year=1995 |title=Going negative: How campaign advertising shrinks and polarizes the electorate |location=New York |publisher=The Free Press}}</ref> corrected some of the previous study's flaws. This study concluded that negative advertising suppressed voter turnout, particularly for Independent voters. They speculated that campaigns tend to go negative only if the Independent vote is leaning toward the opponent. In doing so, they insure that the swing voters stay home, leaving the election up to base voters. They also found that negative ads have a greater impact on Democrats than on Republicans. According to them, base Republicans will vote no matter what (and will vote only for a Republican), but Democrats can be influenced to either stay home and not vote at all or to switch sides and vote for a Republican. This, combined with the effect negativity has on Independents, led them to conclude that Republicans benefit more from going negative than Democrats.

Other researchers have found different, more positive outcomes from negative campaigns. [[Rick Farmer]], PhD, an assistant professor of political science at the [[University of Akron]] found that negative ads are more memorable than positive ads when they reinforce a preexisting belief and are relevant to the central issues of a marketing campaign. Researchers at the [[University of Georgia]] found the impact of negative ads increases over time, while positive ads used to counteract negative ads lack the power of negative ads.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DTI/is_11_32/ai_n8569068 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050622031838/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DTI/is_11_32/ai_n8569068 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2005-06-22 |title=Sock it to 'em: can a negative marketing campaign have positive results? Here's what to know before you strike the first blow &#124; Entrepreneur &#124; Find Articles at BNET |publisher=Findarticles.com |access-date=2011-03-15 |year=2004 }}</ref> Research also suggests negative campaigning introduces controversy and raises public awareness through additional news coverage.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://www.economics.ucr.edu/news/SWET/Garrett_Asay.pdf |title=Why negative campaigning? The chaotic dynamics of an election |author1=Garrett R. Asay |author-link2=Donald G. Saari|author2=Donald G. Saari |date=December 10, 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060323181046/http://www.economics.ucr.edu/news/SWET/Garrett_Asay.pdf |archive-date=March 23, 2006 }}</ref>

[[Kyle Mattes]] and [[David P. Redlawsk]] in ''The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning'' show through surveys and experiments that negative campaigning may provide informational benefits for voters. Without negativity, voters would not have full information about all of their choices, since no candidate will say anything bad about herself. They argue that candidates have to point out the flaws in their opponents for voters to be fully informed.

Most recent research distinguishes between a dichotomous (positive versus negative) and graded conceptualization of negative campaigning. The latter accounts for differences in the strength of negative communication.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Haselmayer |first1=Martin |title=Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and a look ahead |journal=French Politics |date=23 March 2019 |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=355–372 |doi=10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8|doi-access=free }}</ref> It argues that positive (i.e. information about parties and candidates) and derogatory (i.e. democratic disaffection) effects of negative campaigning will depend on the strength or intensity of negative campaigning. Similarly, political candidates and parties have been found to adapt the strength of their negative messages during election campaigns in order to preserve the chances for post-electoral collaboration in countries with frequent coalition governments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haselmayer |first1=Martin |last2=Jenny |first2=Marcelo |title=Negative campaigning among coalition partners |journal=Research & Politics |date=11 September 2018 |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=205316801879691 |doi=10.1177/2053168018796911|doi-access=free }}</ref>