9
frequently aim to promote the personal qualities of the favored candidate, and thus are
viewed by some as superficial fluff pieces, failing to provide citizens with useful
information for influencing the direction of government policy. Hence, the argument
goes, negative campaign ads contribute to a more substantive campaign than would a
campaign composed solely of positive ads because they provide citizens with more of the
information they need to exert control over the policy direction of government.
Research from a variety of sources indicates that individuals respond more to
negatively valenced information than to positively valenced information. For example,
Holbrook et al (2001) demonstrate that when citizens construct their political preferences
they weight their dislikes of candidates more heavily than their likes of the candidates.
Additionally, Marcus and MacKuen (1993) demonstrate that negative emotional arousal
increases citizen engagement in presidential campaigns more than positive emotional
stimulation. Negative ads stir stronger emotions among viewers, increasing the
likelihood that information will be more easily retrieved from memory. Hence, it is
hypothesized that negative information leaves a larger imprint on candidate impression
than positively valenced information. Attack ads should leave a larger mark on citizen
certainty of candidates’ ideological positions and their perceptions of these same
candidates’ ideological positions than positive ads. In that ads about one’s opponent are
likely to be inaccurate, it is expected that attack issue ads will enhance perceptual
certainty but reduce perceptual accuracy. Candidates’ ads about their opponents will
exert a larger impact on certainty judgments and perceptual accuracy than the ads
candidates broadcast about themselves.
Convention