Accentuating the negative

"... Studies demonstrate that, as time passes, the source of a negative [political advertisement] decays, but its content remains and becomes even more powerful."

BEWARE, Mr. and Ms. American Voter, highly skilled spinmeisters are coming after you--more precisely, your vote with unprecedented negative attack advertising. Despite legislation designed to limit campaign mudslinging, negative advertising began earlier in this presidential race than any other in modern political history. To understand how the marketing consultants are working on you, keep in mind three important items: an ad does not have to be liked to be effective; negative ads help voters make distinctions among candidates: and not all negative ads are created equal.

Voters have a hard time with this first concept. Think for a few minutes about an ad slogan you find really annoying. If you are like most of us, you remember the ad, slogan, and product clearly, even if you disliked the ad intensely when it came on the radio or television. One reason why this type of negative ad works is because it is more complex than a positive one.

A positive ad ("Joe Smith is a war veteran, a patriot, and has true American values.") presents no overt conflict, elicits less rebuttal, and is absorbed easily. While "feel good" commercials can be enjoyable to viewers, they are not particularly informative, educational, or memorable. A positive message glides through the brain in much the same way that water from a garden hose washes easily over a smooth patio--nothing gets in its way, slows it down, or "sticks" very long.

A negative ad, however, sticks in the memory. ("Joe Smith never has served his country. used personal influence to avoid military service, and his commitment to true American values should be questioned.") Negative ads cause voters to think, make comparisons, sort through meanings, and assess the validity of claims. The brain expends more time and energy processing the negative message because of its complexity. A negative message is not smooth. It is like water from a garden hose running through a rocky ravine full of crags and cracks thai make the journey more difficult. The water has to traverse slowly, navigating around obstacles, and sometimes getting stuck in little pools.

Negative information carries an inherent memory bias that the positive variety does not. Consider the following illustration: You walk into a room wearing a new suit and receive 15 compliments. It feels great. Then, one person says, "That is an okay look for last year's style." The good feelings stop. Regardless of the number of compliments received and how much you want to remember them, it is the one snide remark that sticks. Negative ads are more memorable than positive ones, even when you do not want them to be.

Not only does negative information stick, it sticks longer. In a series of experimental studies a couple of years ago with groups of registered voters from northeast Georgia, we produced professional quality political commercials for a fictitious candidate and his fictitious opponent in, of course, a fictitious congressional campaign. Using all the appropriate experimental protocol and controls, the participants were asked to evaluate a series of commercials, then answer the question, "If the election for Congress was held today between Candidate X and Candidate Y, who would you vote for?"

We were not surprised that the negative ad we created was especially effective immediately after it was shown, when there was no chance for response or rebuttal. In fact, a majority of those who saw only the attack ad voted for the attacker. When a specific rebuttal ad sponsored by the victim of the attack was viewed, the vote went to the victim. This, too, is not intuitively surprising.

The findings from the next stage of these studies were an eye-opener, however. In a period covering six weeks from the day of his or her vote for the fictitious candidate, each study participant was called back on the telephone. After reacquainting each with some basic information, we repeated the question we had asked the day of the study. The numbers shifted rather dramatically. The attacker overwhelmingly won the election. There even were a couple of instances when a participant would say, "You know, I'm not clear on the name, but I definitely would not vote for that one who lied." Of course, "being a liar" was at the heart of the attack ad.

In these experiments, we tested what psychologists call "the sleeper effect" and generated some intriguing results. The studies demonstrate that, as time passes, the source of a negative attack decays, but its content remains and becomes even more powerful. Simply put, you may forget where or when you learned something, but the negative information stays with you.

During the last two decades, political advertising has become (to the distress of many journalists and political observers) an increasingly important source of information for voters. Some scholars estimate that as many as half of the electorate make voting decisions based upon information from advertising. You may lament the rise of "instantaneous information" in the 30-second commercial spot, but it is a vital feature of the election campaign landscape, particularly aimed at less involved (but responsible) voters. This group needs to receive easily understood, straight-forward information in a simple format.

However, not 'all negative ads are created equal. Up to this point, we have used a general umbrella term to cover a wide range of negative messages. Yet, not all negative attack ads work effectively. A poor ad can blow up in the face of the candidate who sponsored it. There are in fact "good" negative ads and "bad" ones, but yon may be surprised at what constitutes each.

Good negative ads create all the desirable effects discussed earlier. Bad negative ads, however, produce something differentia backlash or boomerang. When a boomerang does occur, viewers have a strong, immediate reaction against the attacker mid lots of empathy for the victim of the attack. It is fairly easy to recognize when an ad is attacking a candidate's stand on an issue versus when one is attacking a personal characteristic, such as likening someone to terrorist Osama bin Laden or dictator Adolf Hitler. Issues based negative advertisements are more likely to elicit an instantaneous acceptance and less revulsion. Similarly, an ad that is considered below the belt or in poor taste (implied character assassination of a candidate's family member, fix example) most likely will be condemned on the spot.

Good and bad negative ads

A negative ad is not good or bad based exclusively on content, nor whether it is funny, entertaining, or well produced. The most important element is how useful the information is judged to be. For instance, conventional wisdom suggests an ad that alludes to the sexual exploits of a married candidate outside of marriage is inappropriate. If the criterion simply was "below the belt," the ad, based on this view, would be rejected and likely produce a backlash. In reality, though, the ad, which the attacker's campaign organization had predicted would have powerful effects, has virtually no impact since the extramarital activities of the attacked candidate were widely known. The information was old news and therefore judged not useful.

A second judgment enters voters' evaluation process of ads here as well: The attack must strike them as at least plausible. When viewing an attack ad, individuals certainly do not know if the information is true. Beyond the accuracy or perceived truthfulness, it seems to be quite important--if a message is going to work--that listeners would find the content within the realm of possibility.

Meanwhile, one component (See. 311) of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law is popularly called the "stand by your ad" provision. As seen in the first negative attack ad that Pres. Bush's campaign levied against Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.), the President introduces the ad personally, saying, "I'm George W. Bush and I approved this message." Clearly, the logic behind the provision is that candidates and the independent organizations that sponsor ads for them will be less likely to "go negative" or to levy particularly vicious attacks if the candidates personally are tied to the message for fear of backlash or boomerang. Additionally, the provision does not allow soft money organizations to air any negative ads in the six weeks immediately preceding Election Day. Although it is too early to conclude that the provision is not working, there has been an early onslaught of attacks from both sides. As to the "softening" of attack ads, that, too, is difficult to assess, as it is impossible to know what ads might have been aired if the new regulations did not exist.

Moreover, the legislation may have an unintended effect. Since many of the attack ads will be restricted in the six weeks immediately prior to Election Day, the harshest will occur early on. By doing so, they are most likely to benefit from the sleeper effect, and, by November, many voters will forget where they heard it, but will remember the content of the attacks.

As protected political speech, negative campaign ads, regardless of any legislation, are here to stay. They can be informative, entertaining, interesting, and motivating. The best ones are. They also can be trashy, boring, and create a backlash. The worst ones do. Yet, an armed, informed audience--even one that claims "We can't stand all that mudslinging!" is able to recognize that these messages have their place.

Ruth Ann Weaver Larisey and Spencer E Tinkham are professors of public relations and advertising, respectively, at the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group