Looking for Meaning in All the Wrong Places: Why Negative Advertising Is a Suspect Category

Abstract

A critical review of academic work on negativity in political advertising shows that the concept has been defined in ways that are too broad, insufficiently holistic, and too pejorative. Data from the American National Election Study demonstrate the disproportionate use of “negative” to describe campaign ads by voters. Exploratory data suggest the component parts of negativity: misleading claims, emotional appeals, one-sided attacks, and a generally loathsome view of politicians. To better understand academic interest in the subject, it is necessary to explore the shared assumptions of the political reform movement of the past century and of reform-minded researchers—specifically their disdain for the emotional underpinnings of political behavior, even as emotion is linked with higher citizen engagement with politics. It is possible to pursue a better informed and less benighted discourse on campaign advertising by eschewing the global conception of negativity by more seriously engaging the theoretical bases of representative government.