1. The Purpose and Effects of Political Advertisements during Presidential Campaigns
BY
JEREMY J. HOFFMAN
Anderson University
Honors Research
POSC 4915
Dr. Frank
April 25, 2012

2. Hoffman 1
Introduction
Throughout the history of the United States the methods by which candidates have
worked to gain an advantage in winning elections has continued to evolve. However, over the
years, politicians have found that political advertising is one of the most effective ways by which
to persuade voters. There are two types of political advertising and both have effects on the
voters and how they perceive each candidate: positive and negative advertising. Positive
advertising has been used by politicians to create a relationship with the voters and to inform the
voters of the candidates own qualities that the voters may be looking for (Johnson-Cartee and
Copeland 1997, 1). On the other hand negative advertising has been the main tool used by
politicians in the past few decades. Even though negative advertising has been the main use of
advertising it does not always have a positive impact for the sponsor or candidate funding the
advertisement. Negative advertisements are thought to make voters more supportive of the
opposing candidate rather than the sponsor and therefore have an overall negative effect towards
the sponsoring candidate (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland 1997, 24). The attitude towards the
candidates may not be the only areas that the advertisements may affect. There is a possible
correlation between the use of negative media during a presidential campaign and the resulting
voter turnout among the eligible population. Using these ideas and theories one can further
evaluate the effects that political advertisements, both positive and negative, have on the actions
of the candidates, the voters, and also the feelings within the electorate during presidential
campaigns by using research to present the facts and any other correlations. Political
advertisements have become an institution of interest over the years. Political advertisements
have been used to determine the political climate during a campaign and the subsequent response
by the voters help to determine what types of political advertisements are beneficial for the
sponsors based on the intended purpose and expected results. To see these practices and results

3. Hoffman 2
in action, this paper will evaluate the elections of 1988, 1992, and 1996 to examine both the
actions of the politicians and the reactions by the voters. These results are what guide political
campaigns and the type of advertisements that they will eventually utilize. Political
advertisements are used to effect the voter’s perception of candidates and to manipulate possible
voter turnout to benefit a candidate on Election Day.
Political Advertisements throughout American History
Media advertisements are not new to the American campaign season. Politicians have
been advertising in one way or another since the beginning of the United States of America.
When the republic was formed there were essentially two political parties in the United States
that would advertise their believes to gain support: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The
Federalists were led by John Adams and wanted a strong national government whereas the Anti-
Federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson and they wanted a weak federal government with more
states rights. The first Presidential campaign in the United States did not occur until 1796
because George Washington was unanimously nominated and elected in 1789. However in 1796,
Adams and Jefferson both campaigned for the Presidency and the advertisements quickly
became apparent. The Anti-Federalists called Adams, “an avowed friend of monarchy” while the
Federalists alleged that Jefferson was an, “atheist, anarchist, demagogue, coward...and Franco-
maniac” (Kamber 1997, 15). However, this was not the worst of what was to come. In the next
election, both Adams and Jefferson ran against each other once again and the advertisements
only grew more hateful. The Connecticut Courier wrote that if Jefferson was elected, “Murder,
robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced…the soil will be
soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes” (Kamber 1997, 15). These attacks would
only get worse as campaigns continue to grow and evolve. As new technologies have developed
and become more available, these tactics have grown to influence a greater percentage of the

4. Hoffman 3
electorate during the campaign season. This essay will evaluate how both positive and negative
advertisements have been used during Presidential campaigns and the theories behind their uses.
With this information, the effects of political during campaigns will be determined based on
voter reactions.
Purpose of Positive Advertisements
The purpose of a campaign advertisement is completely determined by the individual
politician and what they hope to accomplish with the advertisement. According to Ansolabehere
and Iyengar (1995), positive advertisements can have the same potential to sway voters as
negative advertisements do (105). However, most of the time that positive advertisements are
used; politicians use them to promote themselves among the voters. According to Karen
Johnson-Crabtree and Gary Copeland (1997), politicians use positive advertisements for six
reasons: to improve the candidates name recognition, to develop or improve the candidates
association with positive leadership characteristics, to demonstrate similarity with the voters, to
develop the heroic image of the candidate, to develop or improve the candidates association with
issues positively evaluated by the voters, and to link the candidate with positive figures or groups
(2). By evaluating these objectives we can further understand why and when a politician would
choose to air a positive advertisement. The first objective is a logical choice for all candidates
during an election season. This idea to gain name recognition will occur at the beginning of a
campaign season and especially among new candidates that have not ran before. With the second
objective, candidates would be looking to display their résumés and any other experiences that
would show that they are viable candidates for any public office and not just the presidency. The
third and fourth objectives are similar in how they relate to the voters and the preferred outcome
of the candidate. The third objective is to make the voters view the politician as a counterpart
that can be looked up to and respected whereas the fourth objective is to have the voters view the

5. Hoffman 4
candidate as a potential leader. These two objectives are key to gaining support because with
public approval a candidate is much more likely to succeed in an election. The final two
objectives are to create a positive image of the candidate in which his views are explicitly
expressed according to the majority beliefs of the nation. If a candidate shares a common belief
on key issues and is associated with groups that are well respected and prevalent throughout the
country then they would be more likely to be accepted, trusted, and voted for in an election.
These six objectives are important to complete at the beginning of any campaign. With
these steps finished, it allows a candidate to establish a strategy for further advertising based on
the candidate’s personal beliefs, opponent’s actions, and the goals that the candidate is trying to
achieve with their advertising. Possible strategies will mostly depend on the candidate’s position
in current poles, the voter’s reaction to certain advertisements, and the types of advertisements
that the opposition is currently using. When evaluating these three aspects it will become clear as
to what a candidate will need to achieve and therefore which types of advertisements to utilize.
Positive advertisements have been proven to have constructive side effects on voters that
end up helping the candidate. One such positive result is an increase in voter turnout. “Exposure
to a positive advertisement raised intentions to vote by 2.3 percentage points over the baseline
group who saw no advertisement” (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1997, 105). Using these statistics,
a 2.3 percent increase in the 2008 presidential election would have resulted in nearly 5 million
more ballots being cast based on the total voting eligible population in the United States
(McDonald 2008). This strategy can be useful when a candidate knows that they have a lead in
the polls because the independent voters that would be effected are more likely to vote for the
candidate that is already more popular. While the percentages that advertisements have on voters
has been contested based on how voter eligibility was originally calculated, these numbers have
not been disproven. Therefore, candidates that are more popular in a general election are usually

6. Hoffman 5
the more moderate candidate and therefore appealing to the most individuals including the
independent voters. However, if the hope is to increase voter turnout then personal campaign
advertisements will not be enough. Candidates will need to use positive advertisements about
their positions on certain issues. Personal campaign advertisements generally fail to reach
independent voters because they are not persuasive when it comes to issues that are important to
voters. Because of this, independents “tend not to vote…they do not feel that the government
represents their ideas and interests” (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995, 148). With this in mind it
becomes increasingly understandable why more eligible people do not vote. Political
advertisements have separated the electorate leaving the only voters as those with strong partisan
ties. According to Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995), “electoral politics are becoming less
representative. Elected officials respond mainly to the opinions of those who vote, which is
increasingly a partisan and ideologically extreme crowd” (148). Therefore, even though positive
political advertisements tend to be better received by the general public, they are not always
effective in persuading voters.
Positive political advertisement can serve multiple purposes but it usually has one of two
effects of the voter. Positive advertisements that educate the electorate as to the candidate’s
beliefs and stances will have a greater effect on the public and be more beneficial to the
candidate. On the other hand, personal advertisements tend to not effect voter turnout among
independent voters but they are more likely to give those members of the electorate that do vote
a more positive outlook towards the sponsoring candidate. Due to this personal advertisements
are usually only used at the beginning of a campaign as a way to gain notoriety and name
recognition or if a candidate has a comfortable margin in the polls. Once a candidate has firmly
established himself as a potential office holder and viable candidate then they will soon change
their strategy to include new types of advertisements. These advertisements, depending on the

7. Hoffman 6
candidate’s situation, may include both positive and negative advertisements. Negative
advertisements tend to take the place of the positive advertisements in a close race or towards the
end of a campaign when a candidate is losing in the polls. Therefore, negative advertisements are
commonly used out of desperation in a way to help control and determine the outcome of an
election.
Purpose of Negative Advertisements
The purpose of negative advertisements solely depends on the original intent of the
sponsor and can result in either positive or negative changes. Many researchers agree that
negative advertisements will decrease voter turnout, polarize voters, and lead to a decrease of
trust in the government. However, some other views are not held unanimously. These include the
ethics and integrity of negative advertising, the role that advertisements have in educating the
electorate, and the influence that negative advertisements will have on undecided and
independent voters that will end up voting. There may also be evidence that negative
advertisements continue to work after the general election when it comes to setting an agenda
with the new administration. All of these items are affected by negative advertisements in one
way or another and the importance depends on the sponsors intentions.
Negative Advertisements: Three Studies With Different Results
The first effects that negative advertisements have are on the electorate. A study by
Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) found that negative advertisements decrease voter turnout by
2.3 percent. The study asked three different groups about their intentions to vote based on
whether they were subject to watching a positive advertisement, a negative advertisement, or no
advertisement at all (105). This decrease in turnout is often a strategy of many campaigns as they
work to predetermine the outcome of an election. With this in mind, many campaigns will work
to determine those potential voters that their ads can affect by dividing the electorate into three

8. Hoffman 7
groups: those that will definitely not vote for you, those that will vote for you, and those that are
undecided or are not going to vote at all. Negative advertisements are created to stir the emotions
of the 20 to 30 percent of the electorate that is in the group of undecided voters (West 1993,
155). Once this target group has been identified and established, campaigns will work to
determine the policies, legislation, and issues that are important to this group. These areas of
concern will then be the subject of the negative advertisements as a way to gain support from
those voters leaning one way or another. Even though the findings by Ansolabehere and Iyengar
are often criticized, the most important thing to take from this research is that of the stability of
the American system of government. This system is constantly threatened as voter turnout
continues to fall and yet cynicism towards those in office continues to rise.
According to researchers at Rutgers University and George Washington University, there
was inconsistent evidence in the study by Ansolabehere and Iyengar to determine whether or not
negative advertisements actually decrease voter turnout. However, the study did examine
whether or not political advertisements damage the American Political System. In their
conclusion, Richard Lau, Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, and Paul Babbitt found that negative
advertisements tend to not affect voter turnout, threaten the American political system, or change
how viewers feel about the candidates (857). On the other hand, they also found that if each
individual advertisement was evaluated on its own rather than part of an aggregate group, the
effects that it has on the viewers is greater. The study theorized the reason for this difference was
due to the fact that there is not a single definition for negative political advertisements and that
each advertisement uses a different formula when being created (859). For example, some
advertisements use images of candidates and are likely to be more effective than those
advertisements that do not. Therefore, some advertisements are more likely to reduce trust in the

9. Hoffman 8
government, change voter’s opinions of candidates, and reduce voter turnout. Findings similar to
this were also discovered by John Geer and Deborah Brooks in their study conducted in 2004.
In the study Geer and Brooks argued that there are three dimensions that are necessary to
understanding the perception and effects of campaign advertisements: tone (negative versus
positive); civility (civil versus uncivil); and focus (issue versus trait-based messages) (1).
Therefore, in the experiments the same ideas and much of the same text was conveyed but with
different purposes. For tone, the way the advertisements were stated determined if it was positive
or negative. With civility the same idea would be expressed but one would show a mutual
respect for the candidates whereas the uncivil ad would carry animosity and derision. The ideas
of how civility may impact the electorate will be addressed later in this work in greater detail but
for now we will see how it affects turnout. The third dimension is that of focus and for this the
advertisements would either focus on a political issue or a personal trait of one of the candidates.
Once the study was conducted, several conclusions were derived, one of them being that
incivility and negativity do not seem to depress turnout but may create long-term problems that
could be detrimental such as the polarization of the electorate (Geer and Brooks 2007, 10).
In the United States there are two catch-all parties that, when combined, represent the
majority of people in America. This two-party system allows both groups to have a broad
platform and belief system that is growing further and further apart from the other party. With
this growing separation it has caused a polarization of the parties and their respected electorate.
As John Geer (2006) puts it, “As the gap between the parties grows, so do the differences and,
therefore, so do the opportunities for attack. Second, disagreements are more likely to be heated,
because losing the election has more policy consequences in a polarized system than a
nonpolarized one” (147). Therefore, as parties become further and further apart on their views,
legislation become increasingly important to voters. Due to this, candidates are going to strictly

10. Hoffman 9
adhere to their party’s platform to ensure that they maintain their established voter support. “As
their bases of support become more partisan (or at least less Independent and Centrist)…
[candidates] will work harder to represent those partisan interests” (Ansolabehere and Iyengar
1995, 113). The order of causation between voter turnout and polarized parties is debated
between Geer and Ansolabehere and Iyengar. Geer believes that the polarized parties has created
an environment for increased differences and therefore greater reason to use negative
advertisements whereas Ansolabehere and Iyengar argue that negative advertisements are
responsible for the lack of independent voters and therefore the increased polarized electorate
and parties (Geer 2006, 147). The case can be made for either order of causation and both are
present during this time of increased negative advertisements and therefore play an important
role in how voters respond. However, to understand the point made by Geer, there must be an
understanding of how civility effects polarization.
Ron Faucheux, the former editor of Campaigns and Elections stated, "There is a
declining sense of civility in our politics, an abandonment of standards...It's an abscess that has
oozed its toxins throughout the political system. And it's getting worse" (Geer and Brooks 1).
This comment is not just talking about negative advertisements because there is some merit in
using negative ads. Faucheux is talking about how personal attacks are becoming so rampant in
today's politics that it is hurting the entire election and campaign system. The public generally
does not mind when candidates attack each other over the issues. The public does mind however
when candidates attack each other's character. In a 2000 Gallop Poll, 19 percent of the public
classified a candidate discussing an opponent's stand on a particular issue as a negative ad and
only 5 percent considered it "unfair." However, 77 percent of the public considered a candidate
talking about an opponent's extramarital relationship to be negative while 68 percent called it
"unfair" (Geer and Brooks 3). This is not the only concern with incivility. In the study conducted

11. Hoffman 10
by Geer and Brooks, they found that even if a candidate was arguing a valid point the public
would be unlikely to agree if they did so in a disrespectful or uncivil manner. This is why many
consider the electorate to be polarized. Negativity may accentuate the least attractive aspects of
politicians and therefore turn people off to the entire political process. When negativity is
coupled with disrespect and incivility, it reminds voters that the options are "inherently flawed"
and that uncivil personal attacks are not informative or useful in any way for the political process
(Geer and Brooks 8-9). Furthermore, they theorize that while these ads might not decrease voter
turnout the uncivil attacks could "make politicians as a class appear unseemly by casting
aspersions on their character, qualifications, and /or policy preferences" (10). In turn, these
attacks may show how dysfunctional the political world can be and therefore create long-term
problems for the electorate such as polarization or a lack of trust in the government.
Throughout history, trust in the government of the United States has been increasingly
difficult to come by. According to Geer (2006), public trust in the government has been on the
decline since 1964, with trust being measured as the public’s faith in the government’s ability to
handle problems (140). Because government officials are elected by the people they tend to be
held to higher standards, fair or not. Thomas Jefferson once stated, “Whenever a man has cast a
longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct” (Thurber and Nelson 1995, 202). The
entire goal of a representative democracy is that a representative will act on the ideals of their
constituents. However, a representative democracy also creates risks. These risks include the
threat that a representative will pursue their own views and interests instead of their constituents
and that representatives will make unacceptable trade-offs requiring sacrifices from particular
individuals in order to create a collective good for society. According to Geer (2006) four areas
of perception are measured to determine trust in a government: waste, interest, crookedness, and
trust (140). However, these are not the only ways to determine trust in a government official. As

12. Hoffman 11
Thurber and Nelson (1995) discussed, politician’s political lives can be a key indicator in
determining how a politician will act. “For example if a husband cheats on his wife, perhaps he
will deceive his constituents….If candidates are unscrupulous in seeking campaign contributions,
perhaps they will make shady deals in smoke-filled backrooms” (203). These private and
personal actions have allowed the public to generate their own predictions about how politicians
will perform once in office. For this reason, during a campaign, negative advertisements will
often attack a candidate and any personal decisions that may give the public a negative
perception of the candidate.
Thurber and Nelson (1995) argue that this comparison, while simple, is rational and even
reasonable and state that “Candidates stress their own family backgrounds and reputations in the
community because voters want to know what kind of people they are entrusting with the public
welfare. They point out the personal failings of their opponents because voters attach a great
importance to any evidence that a politician might abuse the discretion vested in public office
(204). For this reason, negative advertisements often focus on any downfalls in a candidate’s
character as a way to gain an advantage in the polls. Ansolabahere and Iyengar (1995) concluded
that trust in the government was decreased by 1.4 percent based on the use and exposure to
negative advertisements while an individual’s sense of political self-efficacy dropped by
approximately 2.6 percent (105). However, the same cannot be said of all uncivil advertisements.
Geer and Brooks believe the reason for this is that the public has grown to believe that any form
of print advertisement is automatically misrepresenting and therefore has no merit. On the other
hand, when politicians are seen doing interviews or in a debate, incivility can lead to a greater
lack of trust in the politicians along with the political system since the voters are able to see the
candidates interact with one another. These changes in perception can be very important in a
close presidential election as will be discussed later. While these three explanations for the use of

13. Hoffman 12
negative advertisements were agreed upon by most scholars, the subsequent arguments will not
have the same agreement as to their effects and purposes.
What are ethics? That may be the question that many people tend to think of when they
view negative campaign advertisements. However, the question really lies not in the fact that
they may or not be ethical but rather the fact that the American voter has not done anything to
stop the use of the advertisements and therefore why should politicians stop their use of this
negative media. When it comes to campaigns the word ethics is sometimes replaced by the words
“character” or “truth.” These words are used to help determine the moral and ethical views and
ideologies that a given candidate may exhibit and then determine how their actions in
advertisements will affect them in the general election. According to Darrell West (1993), “For
negative ads to work…they must help candidates define the terms of debate without also making
them come across as mean-spirited” (146). In other words, the use of negative advertisements
can create backlash against the sponsoring candidate if not used correctly or if used too often in
an uncivil manner. Therefore, candidates must be careful to weigh the cost of the blame against
the benefit that they may receive if they display a negative advertisement. Three-fourths of all
personal attack advertisements during a presidential campaign season concern either competence
or integrity (Geer 2006, 72). The theory behind this is most likely to be, if done correctly, that if
one candidate can make another candidate either look incompetent or immoral then the sponsor
will have fewer backlashes since it is easier to make a quantifiable claim about a candidate’s
position based upon how they have voted. Less attack advertisements focus on nominal
statements such as stating that a candidate “does not care for ‘x’” since these types of statements
are not readily provable if necessary. When determining the ethics of a negative advertisement,
the first step is to evaluate the validity of the statements and whether or not they can actually be
proven. Since the biggest tool used to attack a candidate is their morality, it is often the same tool

14. Hoffman 13
used to determine whether the advertisement is ethical by determining if the statements are
honest and factual. The next area to examine is whether or not negative advertisements are
effective in educating the electorate.
Many negative advertisements focus on the personal aspects of a candidate and therefore
are not extremely educational when it comes to a candidate’s political stances on key issues.
However, when the advertisements focus on political issues they tend to be more effective at
educating the electorate. As Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) found, those members of the
electorate that were highly educated were hardly effected by a single advertisement but once they
witnessed multiple advertisements their education about the candidates increased. Moreover,
those members of the electorate that were less educated and those that usually did not vote were
immediately and continuously educated as they witnessed more advertisements as long as they
were attentive to the advertisements. However, those voters that were uneducated and did not
show interest in the election failed to learn altogether (55). According to Geer and Brooks,
people are far more likely to judge issue-based messages than trait-based messages as raising
important concerns. Their study also found that the most important advertisements to the
electorate were advertisements negative in nature but only presented the facts in a respectful and
civil manner. Those advertisements that were seen as uncivil and negative were considered to be
the least important and also the least likely to be acknowledged as truth (8). Furthermore, they
noticed that issue based advertisements were more likely to be recalled correctly than trait based
messages, both positive and negative in nature.
Another interesting fact about education by advertisements is that “viewers who affiliate
with the sponsoring candidates were more informed than those affiliating with the opponent as
well as those with no sense of party identity” (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995, 55).
Advertisements can also be used to contrast the policies of two candidates in order to educate the

15. Hoffman 14
electorate and therefore allowing the voters to determine which policy stance they prefer. With
this, politicians will highlight the downfalls of a policy that their opposition supports in order to
gain support for their own policies.
A Fourth Study: My own findings
The study that I performed was unique in a couple of ways which is what allowed the
study to have relevance compared to the three previous studies. The final study that was done to
better understand the effects of negative advertisements and therefore had a strict design to help
control for multiple variables that had not been controlled for by previous studies. The design
allowed for me to control for both the tone of the advertisement and the sponsoring supporter.
The design allowed for six videos. Three videos would be negative in nature based on the fact
that they criticized the opponent and the other three were positive since they only talked about
the benefits of one of the candidates. One of each of the videos was sponsored by a candidate
while one of each was also sponsored by an independent organization. The final showed no signs
of sponsorship. The images and scripts for the videos can be viewed in Appendices 5-7.
The study was based on anonymity and the Anderson University community. There were
289 completed surveys with the age demographics ranging from ages 18-84. Two-thirds of the
respondents were female while every ethnic category was displayed in the polling process with
the vast majority of respondents being Caucasian. There were essentially two questionnaires
given to each respondent. The first was basic demographic information along with eight
questions that gauged their knowledge and awareness of important political issues and their
likelihood of following major national news through different media outlets such as television,
internet, or newspapers. After these questions, each respondent witnessed one of six political
advertisements as previously described. Afterwards, the respondents answered 13 more questions

16. Hoffman 15
about their trust in government, their participation in the political process, and their self-efficacy
in the current political system. These questions can also be viewed in Appendices 1-5.
The results of this process showed several interesting and surprising features once the
data was collected. To begin, I was astonished to see that while people admit the most effective
form of advertisement is via television, approximately 50 percent of those polled say that they
never watch the national networks to obtain their news information. This could be very useful for
politicians as they determine where and how to advertise. They may receive a better response if
they advertise outside the four or five major television networks. Additionally, when asked about
whether they had read news stories on the internet, in a newspaper, or watched on television,
there was much more participation on the internet. When asked about the newspaper, 56 percent
said that they had not read a newspaper in the last week compared to 46 percent that had not
watched a national news service and only 23 percent that had not used the internet for some form
of news in the past week. As the graph below shows, the internet has become the main source for
regular news updates for most of the participants in the survey.
Figure 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
None One
day
Two
days
Three
days
Four
days
Five
days
Six days
PercentParticipation
Days per week
Percent Participation Based on Media
Type During a typical
week, how many
days do you watch,
read, or listen to
news on the Internet,
not including sports?
How many days in
the PAST WEEK did
you watch the
NATIONAL network
news on TV?

17. Hoffman 16
The most interesting piece of information that I discovered during this process is that the
electorate thinks they have a say in what the government does as a whole but they also feel as
though the elected officials only pay enough attention to the voters in order to get re-elected.
During the survey there was a prompt that stated "People like me don't have any say about what
the government does." 55 percent of those polled disagreed with this statement. However,
another statement in the survey was, "Public officials don't care much what people like me
think." To this, only 28 percent disagreed as you can see in Figure 2. The conclusion that I drew
from these statements is that the majority of people feel as though they have a say in the political
process through the voting system. However, in non-election years, it is increasingly difficult to
for the voter’s voices to be heard. The electorate feels as though the public officials are not being
representative of their constituents or that they just do not care what the electorate thinks any
longer. Along those same lines though, there is a moderate sense of trust in the government as
Figure 2
70 percent of the respondents stated that they "trust the government in Washington to do what is
right." There were also some interesting findings concerning the videos in the survey. For
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Agree Disagree Neither
PercentResponded
Polling Response
Self- Efficacyin AmericanPolitics
Public officials don't care
much what people like
me think.
People like me don't
have any say about what
the government does.

18. Hoffman 17
example, even though the respondents only witnessed one video concerning the election, it was
enough for 18 percent to say that they would probably not or definitely not vote for Matt Fischer
compared to only 7 percent that would probably vote for Fischer, the fictional candidate that was
the focus of the positive advertisement compared to Bryce Mitchell the candidate mentioned in
the negative ads. Therefore, that 18 percent either agreed with the policies of Bryce Mitchell that
were supposed to be negative in nature or they were voting against Fischer because of his use of
negative advertisements. According to Geer and Brooks, Ansolabehere and Iyengar, and Lau,
Sigelman, Heldman, and Babbitt, the ladder is more likely of an explanation.
Another important question in the survey concerned the usefulness of negative
advertisements for the electorate. The questions were written to determine the usefulness if the
ad was focused on the opposing candidates policies or character. In both instances, more than 55
percent of the responses were that negative advertisements are never useful for the voters.
Figure 3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Are useful for voters Are not useful for
voters
Neither
PrecentReponses
Response Options
Voters Attitudes TowardsNegative Ads
How do you feel about
negative campaign
advertisements that
discussa candidate’s
political opinion?
How do you feel about
negative campaign
advertisements that
discussa candidate’s
character?

19. Hoffman 18
However, there was a 7 percent increase by the respondents when the ad focused on the opposing
candidate’s character rather than policies. This difference can be seen in Figure 3. These results
reflect the same conclusion that Geer and Brooks came to in 2004. Even though factual and
relevant information may be displayed, if the advertisement is negative in nature than the
viewers are more likely to reject that ad and the sponsoring candidate will likely face some form
of backlash from the electorate.
Along with the overall polling data, I also sorted responses based on whether or not the
respondents witnessed a positive advertisement or a negative advertisement. The results that I
found were both interesting and unexpected but could offer an optimistic view of American
politics and voter participation. Once the two groups were separated, it became apparent that the
group that witnessed the negative advertisements were more politically optimistic. The
respondents that witnessed the negative advertisements were more likely to think that they had a
say in what the government does, whether or not the government pays attention to their opinions,
and that they trust the government to make the right decision at least most of the time. The group
Figure 4
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Just about
always
Most of the
time
Some of the
time
None of the
time
PercentageofViewers
Trust Government to do what is right
Viewers Trust in Government
Viewed Positive Ad
Viewed Negative Ad

20. Hoffman 19
Figure 5
that witnessed the negative advertisements also thought that negative ads were more useful for
the voters, especially ads that discussed a candidates character. In order to verify the unexpected
results, appendix 8 shows that the demographics of each group that viewed each of the six
advertisements. This is important to show that the randomization of the questionnaire worked
and therefore the results are not biased in any way.
This information helps to support the claim made by Geer and Brooks that while negative
ads may lead to a polarization of the electorate and other long term issues such as trust and
efficacy, they can also create modest stimulation in present day elections. Geer and Brooks
concluded that there was little evidence to believe there was a relationship between message type
and political trust or political efficacy. They also noticed that tone and message recall also created a
marginal relationship. As the separation in my study supported, Geer and Brooks stated that "we see
some suggestive evidence that those least-liked, least-valued kinds of messages may modestly
stimulate two things that we tend to care a great deal about improving as a society: political interest
and likelihood to vote" (2007, 12). This may be explained by a feeling of self-purpose or
responsibility to change the political system. As explained earlier, those members that witnessed
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Agree Disagree Neither
PercentageofViewers
Public officials don't care much what people like me think?
Self- Efficacyin AmericanPolitics
Viewed Positive Ad
Viewed Negative Ad

21. Hoffman 20
the negative advertisements thought that the ads were more useful and believed that the
government cared about public opinion and was likely to do what is right for society most of the
time compared to those that witnessed the positive advertisements. Since those respondents
witnessed the negative advertisements, they may have witnessed a candidate that they thought
would not be good in office and therefore feel as though it is their responsibility to vote in order
to place a better candidate in office. While the electorate may not be happy with the direction a
particular congress or administration may be going, it is important to realize that through voting
the electorate is able to change that direction and place the people that they want into political
office. While the data does not support this explanation in an overwhelming capacity, it is a
helpful explanation to better understand the five to ten percent difference in answers between the
two groups.
Figure 6
To conclude the study, the statistics agree with many of the other researchers. It showed
that negative advertisements are not well received by the electorate and can even have an adverse
effect of the candidates in most cases. Negative advertisements reduce self-efficacy for the voters
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Are
useful for
voters
Are not
useful for
voters
neither Are
useful for
voters
Are not
useful for
voters
neither
Percentofviewers
Negative ads discussing political opinion Negative ads discussing candidate's character
Voter Attitude TowardNegative Advertisements
Viewed Positive Ad
Viewed Negative Ad

22. Hoffman 21
due to the highly polarized political system that has been created from the negative
advertisements as Ansolabehere and Iyengar also concluded. The study also revealed how little
the American voter pays attention to the news or election process, no matter the medium.
However, the study did find an interesting comparison between people that view negative
advertisements and positive advertisements. While the percentage differences were less than
twelve percent, it showed that while people that viewed negative advertisements often felt the
same way as those that viewed positive advertisements, there may have been a sense of personal
responsibility to change the political system among some of the viewers of the negative ads.
Final Comparison of the Four Studies
The four studies previously presented have many things in common but there are also
several questions that are raised due to inconsistencies and different results that the
experimenters achieved. The four studies compared are those by Ansolabehere and Iyengar
Brooks and Geer, Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, and Babbitt, and myself. In the first study,
Ansolabehere and Iyengar found that negative advertisements reduced voter turnout by 2.3
percent (105). However, this was the only study that came to that same conclusion. The
researches at Rutgers and George Washington Universities, Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, and
Babbitt, did find however that in certain instances, some advertisements are likely to reduce
voter turnout but they did not believe negative advertisements as a whole had the same effect.
While the other three studies did agree that the use of negative advertisements were bad for the
long term health of the political system in the United States, they did not feel as though it
effected the electorate’s intent to vote.
The other areas that studies were concerned about however included: trust in the
government, polarization of the electorate, and overall participation in the political system. All
four studies concluded that the continued use of negative political advertisements would result in

23. Hoffman 22
a greater polarized political system that would remind voters that the system in inherently flawed
and dysfunctional. This process would eventually lead to a political system that is less centrist
and moderate and become more biased as time continues. Since 1964, the public's trust in
government has steadily declined as more people do not believe that the officials can handle
problems or do what is in the best interest of the state as a whole (Geer 2006, 140). Finally all
four studies found that as this polarization increases and the overall trust in government
decreases, that more and more people are less likely to participate in the overall political system.
As explained previously based on my own research, an incredibly small portion of people follow
politics or even national news. The electorate does not think that their opinion is an important
factor in the political process, and the vast majority of voters only think that Washington does
what is right "some of the time." These statistics found throughout all of these studies are
disheartening and sad for the American political system. It shows that negative advertisements
do have adverse effects on the electorate, even if it is not in terms of the number of voters. These
consequences are far reaching and can lead to serious long-term problems for American politics.
The data also helps to understand and explain other political occurrences such as presidential
mandates, further advertisement policies, and advertisement targeting.
Party Affiliation and TV Advertisements
In presidential elections, most candidates are not well known at the beginning of the
campaign season. For this reason, television commercials play a major role in providing crucial
information about the unknown candidates and the diversity among their policies (West 1993,
78). Whether the advertisements are positive or negative, the purpose is to create a change in the
perception of the electorate. According to West (1993), candidates will run advertisements that
highlight the issues that are an integral part of their campaign in order to educate the voters as to
that candidate’s strength (89). Therefore a candidate is likely to use a negative advertisement to

24. Hoffman 23
explain the weaknesses of the opposition’s policies while boasting the strengths of their own
policies. Even when an advertisements main purpose is to educate the voters, the advertisement
will have other effects as well. Advertisements have an impact on a candidate’s image, likability,
and electability because of the stances and the tone of the sponsored advertisements (West 1993,
91). These impressions are especially important if they are able to draw the independent voters to
the polls.
Independent voters are often considered the swing-votes in every election. Due to their
importance, if a candidate can appeal to a large amount of the independent voters they are more
likely to win the general election. Approximately 20 percent of participating voters in the
presidential general election are considered independents and do not affiliate with a particular
party (Thurber and Nelson 1995, 186). However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to appeal
to independent voters in the United States because of the two-party system. Independent voters
are a highly unresponsive group, often due to political advertising. Independents often respond
differently to media advertisements than other groups of voters.
Democratic voters tend to prefer positive advertisements about candidates, issues, and the
government as a whole because Democrats in the United States have a proactive view of
government. However, Republicans are more responsive to negative advertisements since they
tend to not trust government and often want a hands-off approach. Republicans believe that
governments often fail in their duties and therefore voters should never trust the government or
politicians. Independent voters are very similar to republicans in their views on government.
Independents are usually distrustful of the federal government, alienated from politics, and tend
to only vote in order to remove someone they do not like from office (Ansolabehere and Iyengar
1995, 67). Because of this distrust it is not only difficult to persuade independents to vote for a
particular person but it is difficult to even get independents to vote. Political advertisements of

25. Hoffman 24
any kind tend to only effect independents on a marginal scale. “Non-partisans’ voting
preferences moved only 3 percentage points in the direction of the sponsor” (Ansolabehere and
Iyengar 1995, 77). However, the use of negative advertisements on the turnout of independents is
staggering. Negative advertisements cause independents to infer that the political process is
flawed creating an 11 point drop in turnout among independents (Ansolabehere and Iyengar
1995, 111). Therefore, independents are practically immune to political advertisements in
general and are extremely unresponsive to negative advertisements of any kind. One final
purpose of advertisements is to set an agenda in case the candidate wins the general election.
Advertising after the Election
When a candidate wins a general election, they have over two months before they will be
sworn in to take office. During this time, a candidate is likely to begin setting the agenda for their
first term in the new administration. If a candidate can market an agenda to the public, it will
help to determine the public’s hopes for the new administration and any mandate that a
president-elect may have. According to Darrell West (1993), politicians will use advertisements
both positively and negatively in order to emphasize, deemphasize, or otherwise raise awareness
to particular issues that they may feel are important (102). If a President can cause the voters to
agree with their particular policies then they will often be more popular and have a better degree
of approval. “The chief executives who are the most successful develop specific priorities and
are able to communicate their preferences clearly to voters” (West 1993, 102). However, this
agenda must be personalized and unique. The agenda must separate the election winner from the
other candidates so that the public will be able to readily identify the key differences in the
candidates and why they voted for one person over another (Thurber and Nelson 1995, 61). To
enhance this effect, many candidates will use negative advertisements about policies rather than
other candidates. For example, if the president-elect has a priority to change a certain policy,

26. Hoffman 25
they will use negative advertisements about why a policy needs to be changed in order to gain
public support for this cause. Since setting an agenda is the next step for the president-elect and a
key step in gaining respect, confidence, and approval from the electorate, advertisements will be
used in any way possible to express the president-elects agenda.
Conclusion
Political advertisements have become a mainstay throughout the history of the United
States. However, the methods by which candidates have worked to gain an advantage in winning
an election has continued to evolve. Over the years, politicians have found that political
advertising is one of the most effective ways by which to persuade voters when used correctly.
There are two types of political advertisements and both have effects on the voters and how they
perceive each candidate: positive and negative advertisements.
Positive advertisements have six purposes according to Johnson-Cartee and Copeland
(1997). The first purpose is to improve the candidates name recognition just by getting the
candidates name out to the public. The second purpose is to develop or improve the candidate’s
association with positive leadership characteristics. This will help to give the voters confidence
in the candidates ability to lead the country if they win the general election. The third purpose is
to demonstrate similarity with the voters. This will allow the voters to create a relationship with
the candidate to develop further trust and understanding with the candidate and their ideologies.
Fourth, positive advertisements are used to develop a heroic image of the candidate. This will
allow the candidate to set an agenda and grow their base of support if they are looked up to. The
fifth purpose is to develop or improve the candidates association with issues positively evaluated
by the voters. In other words, the candidate hopes to share common stances and ideologies with
the public in hopes of creating a greater relationship and common ground among the voters. The
sixth and final purpose is to link the candidate with positive figures and groups. If a candidate is

27. Hoffman 26
supported or endorsed by groups or popular public figures then they are more likely to have a
greater base of support among the electorate.
On the other hand negative advertisements have been the main tool used by politicians in
the past few decades. Even though negative advertising has been the main use of advertising it
does not always have a positive impact for the sponsor or candidate funding the advertisement.
As previously stated, negative advertisements are thought to make voters more supportive of the
opposing candidate rather than the sponsor and therefore have an overall negative effect towards
the sponsoring candidate (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland 1997, 24). Negative advertisements also
have several other areas that they effect during an election. There is a general consensus that
negative advertisements will polarize voters and lead to a decrease of trust in the government
while its effect of voter turnout has been highly contested. Negative advertisements are often
praised or criticized for their part in being an unethical form of advertising, the role that they
have in educating the electorate, and the influence that negative advertisements have on
undecided and independent voters. Whether these are seen as positive effects or not depends on
the sponsor’s intent. While negative advertisements are often considered more informational, the
way they are displayed can actually turn the viewers off towards politics or the sponsoring
candidate if the advertisement is malicious in nature. Advertisements often also play a role in
setting the agenda for the new administration following the general election. All of these
variables are effected by negative advertisements in one way or another and the importance and
magnitude of their change depends on the sponsors intentions. Whether positive or negative in
nature, advertisements have become the main tool used for displaying political messages. The
only change that may occur is the ratio of negative and positive advertisements based on the
political culture during the campaign season. As the issues and political culture changes for each

28. Hoffman 27
presidential election, the use of advertisements, especially negative advertisements, must be
reassessed to determine whether or not they will help the sponsoring candidate.

29. Hoffman 28
References
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1995. Going Negative: How Political
Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.
Geer, John G. 2006. In Defense of Negativity. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Geer, John G., and Deborah Brooks. 2007. “Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the
Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Jamieson, Kathleen. 1992. Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy. Oxford:
Oxford University.
Johnson-Cartee, Karen S., and Gary A. Copeland. 1997. Manipulation of the American Voter:
Political Campaign Commercials. London: Praeger.
Kamber, Victor. 1997. Poison Politics: Are Negative Campaigns Destroying Democracy? New
York: Insight Books.
Lau, Richard, Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman and Paul Babbitt. 1999. “The Effects of
Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment.” The American
Political Science Review. Vol. 93, No. 4, pp. 851-875.
McDonald, Michael. 2008. “United States Election Project.”
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html (Accessed 10/31/10).
Scher, Richard K. 1997. The Modern Political Campaign. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Thurber, James A., and Candice J. Nelson, eds. 1995. Campaigns and Elections American Style.
Oxford: Westview Press.
West, Darrell M. 1993. Air War: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952-1992.
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Weekly.