Page 120 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

Persuasion in the Political Context 113

supporters, who are made to think of themselves as “pro-Bush” by the me-
dia, should be more vulnerable to attacks on their candidate than voters
who are classified as “anti-Kerry” by the media. In their research, Bizer and
Petty (2005) confirmed the operation of the negativity effect and under-
scored its vitality for creating attitudinal resistance in voters for a particular
candidate. It must be noted, though, that a presentation of an image of the
counter-candidate in the media that strengthens the negativity effect can be
classified as a negative political advertisement.
The research described above helps explain the destructive power of
negative advertisements aimed at political opponents. Focusing the cogni-
tive processes of voters on thinking about the political opponent, as done
in such advertisements, automatically triggers the negativity effect and in-
oculates voters against messages attacking the candidate they support.
This is a sophisticated strategy that gives insight into the operation of neg-
ative political advertising.
Let us analyze the results of the research conducted by Kaid (1997) on
the impact of negative comparative advertising. In 1996 she conducted
experimental research on the perception of advertising spots that distorted
the images of the candidates in the U.S. presidential contest between Bill
Clinton and Bob Dole. Different groups of subjects watched either the
original negative spots about Dole and Clinton where distorted pictures
were used, or the same advertisements with the distortions completely
removed.
Figure 4.5 presents the complete picture of how negative advertise-
ments produced by Dole’s campaign to distort Clinton’s image influenced
subjects’ evaluation of the candidate and their intention to vote for him.
The results obtained by Kaid (1997) revealed an interesting phenome-
non. In accordance with the logic of negative information, such informa-
tion weakens the image of the attacked candidate and discourages people
from voting for him. However, there is an additional effect brought about
by this information. Negative advertising not only decreases the rival’s
chances but also increases the chances of the candidate whose campaign
prepared the spots. This observation goes hand in hand with the findings
of Faber, Tims, and Schmitt (1990) that negative ads are more likely to
cause target-partisans to strengthen their support for the target candidate
and to cause source-partisans to strengthen their support for the ad
sponsor.
The observed result, in the form of the positive influence of negative
political advertising on the image of the candidate who opposes the one
presented in the advertisement, is a good illustration of the negativity ef-
fect described by Bizer and Petty (2005). The enhanced political image