Editing Attack ad (section)

==Effectiveness==
Studies claim that 82% of Americans dislike attack ads, and 53% believe that the "ethics and values" of election campaigns have worsened since 1985.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lipsitz |first1=Keena |last2=Trost |first2=Christine |last3=Grossmann |first3=Matthew|author4-link=John M. Sides |last4=Sides |first4=John |title=What Voters Want From Political Campaign Communication |journal=Political Communication |date=July 2005 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=337–354 |doi=10.1080/10584600591006609 |citeseerx=10.1.1.591.2931 |s2cid=18475734 }}</ref> The voting public see attack ads as an element of smear campaigning.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gann Hall |first1=Melinda |last2=Bonneau |first2=Chris W. |title=Attack Advertising, the White Decision, and Voter Participation in State Supreme Court Elections |journal=Political Research Quarterly |date=March 2013 |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=115–126 |doi=10.1177/1065912911433296 |s2cid=34068375 |url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5602/563b0c595b929e1192b99a44c611b243a1b1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200212210357/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5602/563b0c595b929e1192b99a44c611b243a1b1.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2020-02-12 }}</ref> Other research indicates that voters are open to candidates attacking each other if the issues in question are "appropriate". In a 1999 survey of Virginia voters, 80.7% felt it is fair for a candidate to criticize an opponent for "talking one way and voting another", though but only 7.7% feel it is fair for a candidate to attack an opponent for the "behavior of his/her family members".<ref name="freedman">{{cite journal|author1=Freedman, P.|author2=Lawton, D.|author3=Wood, W.|title=Do's and Don'ts of Negative Ads: What Voters Say|journal=Campaign Elections|volume=20|pages=20–25|year=1999}}</ref>

Political operatives, however, have found attack ads to be useful, and [[social psychologist]]s claim that negative information has a tendency "to be more influential than equally extreme or equally likely positive information".<ref name=Lau>{{cite journal |last1=Lau |first1=Richard R. |last2=Rovner |first2=Ivy Brown |title=Negative Campaigning |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |date=June 2009 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=285–306 |doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071905.101448 |doi-access=free }}</ref> [[University of Toronto]] professor Scott Hawkins "suggests that even a mention in the media that a candidate or party is planning to run negative advertisements can be beneficial, since it plants seeds of doubt in the voter's mind, especially early in the campaign when voters tend to be less involved. If the reported claims turn up in advertisements later in the campaign, they already seem familiar to the voter."<ref>{{cite web|last = McGuffin|first = Ken|date = 10 May 2004|url = https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/news/detail.asp?ID=78|title = Political Attack Ads Can be Effective but Risky|publisher = Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110301041158/https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/news/detail.asp?ID=78|archive-date = 1 March 2011}}</ref>

In the United States, researchers have consistently found that negative advertising has positive effects. Negative advertising "is likely to stimulate voters by increasing the degree to which they care about the election's outcome or by increasing ties to their party's nominee;"<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Finkel |first1=Steven E. |last2=Geer |first2=John G. |title=A Spot Check: Casting Doubt on the Demobilizing Effect of Attack Advertising |journal=American Journal of Political Science |date=April 1998 |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=573 |doi=10.2307/2991771 |jstor=2991771 }}</ref> it makes the election seem more important, and thus increases [[voter turnout]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldstein |first1=Ken |last2=Freedman |first2=Paul |title=Campaign Advertising and Voter Turnout: New Evidence for a Stimulation Effect |journal=The Journal of Politics |date=August 2002 |volume=64 |issue=3 |pages=721–740 |doi=10.1111/0022-3816.00143 |jstor=1520110 |s2cid=154565485 }}</ref> Other research has found that negative advertisements only appeal to [[Partisan (political)|partisan voters]], and that it alienates independents, causing elections to be fought among partisan extremes.<ref>{{cite book|author=Iyengar, Shanto|author2=Ansolabehere, Stephen|title=Going negative : how attack ads shrink and polarize the electorate|year=1996|publisher=Free Press|location=New York|isbn=9780684822846|edition=1st paperbook|url=https://archive.org/details/goingnegativehow00anso_0}}</ref>

===Backfires===
If an ad is seen as going too far or being "too personal", voters may turn against the party that put the ad out. For example, in the Canada [[1993 Canadian federal election|1993 federal election]], the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservative (PC) Party]] attacked [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] leader [[Jean Chrétien]] by implicitly [[1993 Chrétien attack ad|mocking his Bell's Palsy partial facial paralysis]]. Outrage followed, and the PC Party's image was badly damaged in the polls.<ref>{{cite AV media|title=1993: Is this a prime minister?|work=Political Attack Ads|publisher=CBC News Online|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/who-attackads/|medium=Interactive graphic}}</ref> Similar backlash happened to the Liberal Party of Canada in the 2006 federal election, when they created an attack ad suggesting that Conservative leader [[Stephen Harper]] would use armed Canadian soldiers to police major cities. Though [[2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads|the ads]] were never aired, they diminished the believability of other ads by the Liberal Party.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/martin-says-he-only-approved-transcript-of-controversial-soldiers-ad-1.606742|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225113027/http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/12/elxn-libs-research-military.html|archive-date=February 25, 2008|title=Martin says he only approved transcript of controversial 'soldiers ad|date=January 12, 2008|url-status=live|publisher=CBC News}}</ref> A leaked copy, broadcast on the news, offended many Canadians, particularly the [[Military of Canada|military]], some of whom were fighting in Afghanistan at the time.{{citation needed|date=October 2012}}

In the run up to, and in the [[2015 Canadian federal election]] itself, [[Justin Trudeau]], Leader of the [[Liberal Party of Canada]] and the son of Canadian Prime Minister, [[Pierre Trudeau]], was subjected to a sustained negative ad campaign by the [[Conservative Party of Canada]]. However, the "Just Not Ready" campaign was judged by the public as unfair and mocking of the Liberal leader.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Campbell|first1=Bradley|title=Stephen Harper underestimated Justin Trudeau, but it was the mocking way he did it that cost him the election|url=http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-20/stephen-harper-underestimated-justin-trudeau-it-was-mocking-way-he-did-it-cost|access-date=October 21, 2015|work=PRI|date=October 20, 2015}}</ref> More importantly, the advertising campaign lowered public expectations of Trudeau's performance that even Conservative personnel noted that he would impress people if he showed any display of competence in public events such as the televised debates.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Hamilton|first1=Graeme|title=Graeme Hamilton: Justin Trudeau's stunning victory for the Liberals should finally silence his doubters|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/graeme-hamilton-justin-trudeau-emerges-victorious-from-an-election-campaign-that-should-finally-silence-his-doubters|access-date=October 21, 2015|work=National Post|date=October 20, 2015}}</ref> That proved to be the case, and Trudeau took advantage of the public's low expectations to impress the public with his articulate and passionate manner to garner support throughout the campaign until his party won a [[majority government]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Gagnon|first1=Michelle|title=Justin Trudeau's rise shows the benefits of being underestimated|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-michelle-gagnon-1.3259553|access-date=October 21, 2015|publisher=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=October 7, 2015}}</ref>

In 2006, Republican challenger [[Paul R. Nelson]] campaigned against Democrat [[Ron Kind]] for a seat in the [[United States House of Representatives]]. Nelson's ad stated, "Ron Kind has no trouble spending your money, he'd just rather spend it on sex," and, "Instead of spending money on cancer research, Ron Kind voted to spend your money to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes."<ref>{{cite AV media|medium=Television ad|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKln7salIrg |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211221/rKln7salIrg |archive-date=2021-12-21 |url-status=live|title=Paul R. Nelsion Sex Studies Ad|publisher=Paul R. Nelson for Congress Committee|location=Wisconsin}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Nelson's challenge fell short, as Ron Kind was reelected, while the attack's outrageous presentation provoked an uproar from Republicans and Democrats alike.{{citation needed|date=October 2012}} A 1999 survey showed that challengers lose almost 3 points on the [[feeling thermometer]] (a 100-point scale used to assess survey-takers feelings on certain issues)<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods|title=Feeling Thermometer|editor-first=Paul J.|editor-last=Lavrakas|author=Nelson, Shannon C.|isbn=9781412918084|url=http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n183.xml|year=2008}}</ref> when a candidate engages in [[mudslinging]]. The study also shows that the influence of negativity is less powerful for challengers than for incumbents.{{clarify|date=October 2012}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kahn |first1=Kim Fridkin |last2=Kenney |first2=Patrick J. |title=Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship between Negativity and Participation |journal=American Political Science Review |date=December 1999 |volume=93 |issue=4 |pages=877–889 |doi=10.2307/2586118 |jstor=2586118 |s2cid=146440839 }}</ref>