The Effect of Attack ads on political campaigns - Research Paper Example

The Effect of Attack ads on political campaigns Introduction Succeeding in political conflicts has become a challenging task for politicians worldwide. Under certain terms, it can be quite difficult for a candidate to explain his qualities and skills to the public mostly due to the strong oppositions develop by his opponents. Attack ads have introduced in political campaigns in order to help candidates to strengthen their position towards their opponents. Due to their success, these ads have become an indispensable part of political campaigns worldwide. In USA also, a similar trend exists. The potential effect of attack ads on political campaigns are explored in this paper. Reference is made to the characteristics of these ads and their implications, both for the persons involved and for the political system. It is revealed that the effect of attack ads on political campaigns has many aspects. It is also proved that the use of attack ads cannot be controlled, even if these ads are not fully justified by existing laws. 2. Attack ads on political campaigns 2.1 The characteristics of attack ads as part of political campaigns Attack ads are a key part of political campaigns worldwide. In USA the particular type of ads is quite popular, since it is related to a series of advantages for those who use these ads for improving their public image. In order to understand the effects of attack ads on political campaigns it would be necessary to refer primarily to the characteristics of these ads, at least in their most common forms. Roberts & Hammond (2012) explain that attack ads ‘are extensively used by candidates in US presidential elections’ (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). It should be noted that the form of attack ads, as part of political campaigns, is not standardized. In practice, five types of attack ads seem to be quite popular: ‘a) fear appeal ads, b) guilt by association ads, c) roll your own ads, d) policy comparison ads and e) policy failure ads’ (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). In each presidential campaign one or more of the above attack ads are used for leading voters to choose a particular candidate. Moreover, Frith & Mueller (2010) notes that political advertisements can be classified into three categories: ‘attack, advocacy and contrast’ (Frith & Mueller 2010, p.59). Attack ads focus on ‘the faults of the opponent’ (Frith & Mueller 2010, p.59). Advocacy ads refer to the capabilities of a candidate, without referring to the opponent (Frith & Mueller 2010, p.59). As for the contrast ads, these are a combination of the above, referring both to qualities of a candidate and ‘to the faults of his opponent’ (Frith & Mueller 2010, p.59). Two popular political ads are the following ones: a) the ad entitled as ‘Daisy Girl’ was used in the presidential elections of 1964 (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). The above ad, which aimed on causing fear to voters in regard to the potential effects of their voting preferences, showed ‘a small girl plucking the petals off of a daisy’ (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). The next scene showed a nuclear explosion (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). Voters were asked to avoid voting the nominee of Republican Party who could possibly ‘lead the country to a nuclear war’ (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5); b) another popular attack ad is entitled as ‘the 3am phone call’ (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5) and was used by Hilary Clinton in the presidential elections of 2008. The particular ad, which can be characterized as a policy comparison ad, aimed to highlight the lack of experience of Barack Obama, compared to Hilary Clinton, in facing emergent issues. The ad entitled as ‘Daisy Girl’, as presented above, has faced strong criticism. Many political analysts did not accept the fact that one of the candidates of the presidential elections was portrayed as a strong supporter of piece, referring to Johnson, while the other was characterized, referring to Goldwater even if he was not named, as a supporter of war (Sparks 2012, p.223). Such perspective could not be accepted since the candidate who promoted this attack ad, Johnson, was the one who gave the order to American troops to be involved in Vietnam (Sparks 2012, p.223). Still, even his opponents would have the chance to use the above decision for limiting the popularity of Johnson, through the same means, i.e. through attack ads, no such activity was reported (Sparks 2012, p.223). In fact, Sparks (2012) notes that no attack ads were developed in the years that followed in regard to the involvement of America in the Vietnam War. Reference should be also made to the political campaign employed by ‘John McCain in the presidential elections of 2008’ (Mattes 2012, p.371). According to the research developed by University of Wisconsin the political campaign of the above candidate was totally negative (Mattes 2012, p.371), based on attack ads. Still, the effectiveness of these ads cannot be considered as guaranteed. For example, in the research developed by Brooks (2006) in relation to the political campaigns used in Senate elections it was revealed that the response of voters to attack ads is not fully positive, as many believe (Brooks 2006, p.684). Also, a meta-analytic research on literature, has verified that the success of attack ads is not standardized nor it is verified by appropriate empirical evidence (Lau, Sigelman & Rovner 2007, p.1186). The research developed by Krupnikov (2011) led to a similar assumption: that the findings of literature and empirical research related to the value of negative ads ‘lead to opposing views’ (Krupnikov 2011, p.797). The above problem occurs, according to Krupnikov (2011) because most of researchers have not taken into consideration the following factor: ‘the time exposure to negative ads’ (Krupnikov 2011, p.797). It should be noted that despite the negative criticism, attack ads remain the key element of political campaigns. In fact, it seems that all political campaigns are highly based on attack ads (Benoit 2007). After reviewing the content of political campaigns for ‘the Senate, in 1984, and the Congressional, in 1986, elections’ (Benoit 2007, p.154) researchers came to the conclusion that a 50% of the political ads included were attack ads. In another study of similar scope, it was revealed that a percentage of ‘43% of political ads used between 1984 and 1994 have been attack ads’ (Benoit 2007, p.154). It is clear that the involvement of attack ads in political life it is quite difficult to be controlled. The role of attack ads, as opposed to common ads, should be clearly analyzed. In this way, it would be made clear while attack ads are quite popular in political campaigns. Smith (2005) notes that attack ads have a critical differentiation from common ads. It is explained that in the context of political campaigns attack ads focus on destroying the public image of a candidate’s opponent (Smith 2005, p.295). These ads do not aim to attract voters to a candidate but rather to influence negatively the voters of the opponent (Smith 2005, p.295). Common ads focus on persuading people to buy a particular product or service (Smith 2005, p.295). In other words, attack ads are mainly a tool for negative advertising and cannot be used, at least not widely, in commerce but they are most appropriate for political campaigns. Due to their effects on political and social life, political campaigns have been often set under the review of legislators (Frith & Mueller 2010). Claims that the content of political campaign should be limited by law have been developed (Frith & Mueller 2010). These claims tend to be ignored since the establishment of laws for controlling the content of political advertisements would possibly result to the limitation of freedom of expression (Frith & Mueller 2010, p.59), a perspective that cannot be accepted. However, Kamber (2003) claims that attack ads can be also considered as opposed to the existing civil rights. In fact, through these ads an accusation is developed against another person. The fact that this accusation may be indirect cannot justify the acceptance of attack ads as part of political campaigns (Kamber 2003). Actually, these ads should be considered as a threat to democracy (Kamber 2003) offering the right to a person to develop accusations against another person without the latter to have the right to ask for the intervention of the authorities and the punishment of the initiator of the relevant attack ads (Kamber 2003). In regard to this issue Johnson-Cartee & Copeland (1997) highlight the responsibility of the media for the rapid expansion of attack ads, as parts of the political campaigns. In practice, by promoting attack ads the media highly contribute in the acceptance of these ads by the legal authorities (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland 1997, p.34). If the media would have been involved in investigations in regard to ‘the role and the credibility of attack ads’ (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland 1997, p.34), these ads would have been rejected as marketing tools in political campaigns. 2.2 The effect of attack ads on political campaigns Different views have been developed in regard to the potential effects of attack ads on political campaigns. According to Roberts & Hammond (2012) there are people that consider attack ads as quite important for political campaigns since they make voters ‘to realize the importance of voting’ (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). On the other hand, attack ads are often considered as having the power of ‘demobilizing voters’ (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). Such risk exists in the case of attack ads that make voters to feel that a candidate has a negative attitude, as a person or as a politic (Roberts & Hammond 2012, p.5). Trent (2011) notes that from 1984 onwards the number of attack ads used in political campaigns has been significantly increased, a fact indicating the high value of these ads for enhancing the popularity of candidates (Trent 2011, p.173). It is explained that the decision for using such ads in political campaigns belongs to consultants (Trent 2011, p.173). The willingness of these consultants to use attack ads in political campaigns can lead to the assumption that the benefits of attack ads are significant, compared to the potential disadvantages (Trent 2011, p.173). Still, the disadvantages of attack ads cannot be ignored, at the level that they can highly affect the outcome of a political campaign. At first level, an attack ad can cause to the voters fear for the election process, leading to an opposite result than the one expected (Trent 2011, p.173). Trent (2011) notes that the above claim, even if it is quite popular, it has not been verified through appropriate empirical research. Reference can be made, as an example, to the findings of an empirical study developed in 1990 (Trent 2011, p.173). The above study revealed that even if attack ads, and negative ads in general, often discourage voters from participating in the voting process, these ads can also attract voters so that the negative effects of attack ads on political campaigns are often eliminated (Trent 2011, p.173). In this context, the claim that the influence of attack ads on political campaigns is mainly negative is not verified. The lack of standard outcome of attack ads, in regard to political campaigns, is also highlighted in the study of Kaid (2004). An empirical study developed in 1992 in relation to California elections for the Senate is used as an example. In the above study it was revealed that the response of voters to advertising messages released during elections is not standardized; there are voters who respond positively to these ads. There are also voters who have to face pressure from two different directions: the ads published by the nominee of their Party and ‘the attack ads of the opponent’ (Kaid 2004, p.170). From another point of view, Richard (2009) notes that attack ads are preferred in political campaigns mostly because they offer the following advantage: people tend to remember attack ads even if they don’t agree with their content (Richard 2009, p.250). In fact, the research developed in this field has proved that ‘attack ads are more likely to be remembered than positive ads’ (Richard 2009, p.250). In psychology the following explanation has given for the above phenomenon: attack ads activate ‘the automatic processing of mind while positive ads are usually related to the controlled processing’ (Richard 2009, p.250). In other words, attack ads are remembered because they are based on the surprise, the fear or even the anger of the viewer (Richard 2009, p.250) while positive ads are processed by mind in the same way as most daily human activities which are often difficult to be recalled in mind since they have not been related to an exceptional feeling, as described above (Richard 2009, p.250). 3. Conclusion The response of people to political campaigns has been highly explored in order to identify the factors that can highly influence the voters’ opinion. According to the findings of relevant research, as presented above, voters are likely to be influenced by negative ads. However, there is also the opposite view, also backed by empirical research, that the power of negative ads it is not as high as believed (Brooks 2006, Lau et al. 2007). Still, the use of attack ads in political campaigns is still extensive. The fact that attack ads can severely harm the image of the opponent is a reason that these ads are preferred in crucial political campaigns. The presidential campaigns in USA can be considered as a critical example of massive use of attack ads in politics. The expansion of attack ads should not be considered as a justification for their involvement in political campaigns. Rather, concerns would exist as to the ways in which the control of attack ads would become feasible. The establishment of a legal framework with the rules of these ads’ use would be a first effort towards the achievement of the above target. References Benoit, W. (2007). Communication in Political Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang. Brooks, D. (2006). The Resilient Voter: Moving Toward Closure in the Debate over Negative Campaigning and Turnout. Journal Of Politics, 68(3), 684-696. Frith, K. & Mueller, B. (2010). Advertising and Societies: Global Issues. New York: Peter Lang. Johnson-Cartee, K. and Copeland, G. (1997). Inside Political Campaigns: Theory and Practice. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group Kaid, L. & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2006). The SAGE Handbook of Political Advertising. London: SAGE. Kamber, V. (2003). Poison Politics: Are Negative Campaigns Destroying Democracy? New York: Basic Books. Krupnikov, Y. (2011). When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout. American Journal Of Political Science, 55(4), 797-813. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. The Journal Of Politics, 69(4), 1176-1209. Mattes, K. (2012). What Happens when a Candidate Doesn’t Bark? “Cursed” Voters and Their Impact on Campaign Discourse. Journal Of Politics, 74(2), 369-382. Richard, H. (2009). A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Roberts, R. & Hammond, S. (2012). Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Smith, K. (2005). Handbook of Visual Communication Research: Theory, Methods, and Media. London: Routledge. Sparks, G. (2012). Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Trent, J. (2011). Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More