The 2012 election is shaping up to be ugly, with considerably more negative advertisements than the election four years ago. It’s no surprise that campaigns are relying more on attack ads, for the simple reason that research shows going negative is effective with voters, if it’s done correctly, especially by incumbents.

 

So far, about 70% of advertising in this year’s presidential contest has been negative, compared to just 9% at this stage in 2008, according to the Wesleyan Media Project.

 

Meanwhile, professors Kim L. Fridkin and Patrick J. Kenney at Arizona State University found after conducting a survey of voters that negative ads can hurt a candidate—if the mud being slung is “relevant.”

 

Relevancy is the key. When commercials were deemed both uncivil and irrelevant, voters were more likely to tune out, according to the survey.

 

The university poll also revealed that certain types of voters are more tolerant of nasty campaign ads, specifically people who are highly partisan, politically dialed in, conservative, male, young, or lacking in political sophistication.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

 

To Learn More:

Survey Finds Attack Ads Work, Though Better On Some Voters Than Others (by Lee Drutman, Sunlight Foundation)

Presidential Ads 70 Percent Negative in 2012, Up from 9 Percent in 2008 (Wesleyan Media Project)