![]() Many candidates for elected office will never need to “go negative” during their campaigns. With that out of the way you’re probably wondering if I’m saying that you have to go negative, attack your opponents, and sling as much mud possible in your campaign? Every negative ad has at least an implied comparison….This complexity can cause us to process the information more slowly and with somewhat more attentiveness. A positive message that talks about the sponsoring candidate’s voting record, for example, is simple and straightforward. Second, negative ads are more complex than positive ones. Negative information is more memorable than positive - just think how clearly you remember an insult. They “stick” for several reasons.įirst, one of the most important contributors to their success may be the negativity bias. There is some evidence that negative messages may be more likely than positive ones to passively register. When we are distracted or not paying attention we may nonetheless passively receive information. When we pay attention to a message we are engaged in active message processing. Our brains process information both consciously and non-consciously. So if we don’t like negative ads and even perhaps suspect they contribute to political malaise, why are they increasingly dominating candidates’ strategies? In 2012, Ruthan Lariscy explained this contraction in a Special Report for CNN: How can this be? How can voters who adamantly hate negative campaigning, have their voting behavior swayed when a candidate is attacked? Why Voters Respond to Negative Campaigning They’re probably telling the truth, but at the same time negative campaigning is influencing their vote. ![]() ![]() Most voters will tell you they’re turned off by negative campaigning literature. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |