Kim L. Fridkin

Do Negative Messages Work? The Impact of Negativity on Citizens’ Evaluations of Candidates

We examine the effectiveness of negative campaigning. Specifically, we focus on the question, Do negative campaign messages alter citizens’ evaluations of competing candidates? We rely on a research design that replicates the campaign environment for nearly 100 Senate elections involving thousands of voters. Furthermore, we utilize a theoretical framework that sheds light on how negative information influences people’s social judgments. In general, the results suggest that negative messages delivered in a legitimate fashion and focusing on a relevant topic depress evaluations of opponents. In contrast, negative messages containing irrelevant information delivered in an overly strident manner depress evaluations of both candidates involved in the campaign. In addition, the findings indicate that the impact of negative messages varies depending on (a) the status of the candidate delivering the message, (b) the characteristics of the citizens receiving the message, and (c) the style of the candidates’criticisms (e.g., policy vs. personal attacks).

The Role of Candidate Traits in Campaigns

We examine how candidates shape citizens’ impressions of their personal traits during U.S. Senate campaigns. We look at the personality traits emphasized by candidates in their controlled communications and in news coverage of their campaigns. We couple information about campaign messages with a unique survey dataset allowing us to examine voters’ understanding and evaluations of the candidates’ personalities. We find that messages from the news media influence people’s willingness to rate the candidates on trait dimensions. In addition, negative trait messages emanating from challengers and the press shape citizens’ impressions of incumbents. In contrast, voters’ evaluations of challengers are unmoved by campaign messages, irrespective of the source or tone of the communications. Finally, we find citizens rely heavily on traits when evaluating competing candidates in U.S. Senate campaigns, even controlling for voters’ party, ideological, and issue preferences.

The Role of Gender Stereotypes in U.S. Senate Campaigns

In this article, we rely on data from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) to examine the impact of gender for U.S. senators running for reelection. We propose a theoretical explanation for why an incumbents gender may influence how citizens evaluate senators, and we present empirical evidence showing that people develop distinct impressions of men and women senators during campaigns. In the 2006 election cycle, women senators were viewed more positively than their male counterparts. Some of the advantages women senators enjoyed were consistent with established gender stereotypes. In particular, women senators were viewed as more honest and more caring than male senators. Moreover, women senators were viewed as more competent at dealing with health-care issues. However, we did not find evidence for gender stereotypes that traditionally produce more positive views of male senators. For example, we did not find that male senators were viewed as stronger leaders or more experienced than women senators. People did not view male senators as better able to deal with economic issues.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: How Fact-Checking Influences Citizens’ Reactions to Negative Advertising

Electoral campaigns are dynamic and an important change in recent elections is the growth of fact-checking; the assessment of the truthfulness of political advertisements by news media organizations and watchdog groups. In this article, we examine the role that fact-checks play in shaping citizens’ views of negative commercials and political candidates. We rely on an Internet survey experiment where we vary people’s exposure to negative advertisements and a follow-up fact-check article (i.e., no fact-check, accurate fact-check, inaccurate fact-check). The results of our experiment show that fact-checks influence people’s assessments of the accuracy, usefulness, and tone of negative political ads. Furthermore, sophisticated citizens and citizens with low tolerance for negative campaigning are most responsive to fact-checks. The fact-checks also sway citizens’ likelihood of accepting the claims made in the advertisements. Finally, negative fact-checks (e.g., fact-checks challenging the truthfulness of the claims of the negative commercial) are more powerful than positive fact-checks.

The impact of descriptive representation on “persistent” gender gaps: political engagement and political trust in Uruguay

ABSTRACT Persistent gender gaps in political engagement, which have been observed across the globe, continue to puzzle researchers. Given that the heightened legislative presence of a previously under-represented group has the potential to boost political involvement among citizens, this paper addresses the question of how women’s increased descriptive representation can shape political engagement and trust in the democratic process. The adoption of a gender quota in Uruguay allowed us to prognosticate a rise in women’s descriptive representation following the October 2014 elections. Our two-wave panel survey polled 1200 Uruguayan citizens immediately prior to the elections when the gender quota was first applied and shortly thereafter. Our results reveal that “persistent” gender gaps are not insurmountable. After the election, women are more likely to trust in political institutions than men, and previous gender gaps in political interest, understanding of the issues, and trust in elections dissipate.

The Upside of the Long Campaign: How Presidential Elections Engage the Electorate

We theorize that the “long campaign” provides the impetus to motivate people to engage in campaign politics. We rely on panel survey data from the Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project to evaluate the impact of a long presidential campaign on citizens’ political engagement. The panel provides us unique leverage to render the analysis fully dynamic and to minimize endogeneity issues because we determine temporal order for key concepts. We find that campaign contacts occurring during the primary significantly increase participation in the general election. We also find that exposure to advertisements during primaries translates to higher levels of voter engagement in the fall campaign. We demonstrate that attitudes toward primary and general election candidates are strongly related to voters’ engagement in the fall campaign. Finally, we are able to explain how contacts, campaign information, and citizen attitudes toward candidates shape changes in levels of engagement across the primary and general election campaigns.

Gender Differences in Reactions to Fact Checking of Negative Commercials

One of most negative campaigns in history may have taken place during the 2014 Senate election cycle. Nearly 75% of senate ads aired during a two-week period in early fall of 2014 showed a candidate in a negative light, according to the Wesleyan Media Project. A postelection analysis by the Center for Public Integrity showed that 46% of the more than one million ads aired during the 2014 senate campaigns were negative. And, in the most competitive states, the proportion of negative ads was even higher (e.g., 67% in North Carolina, 58% in Kansas). Negative advertisements sponsored by candidates, interest groups, and political parties are being launched on the airways, in newspapers, on radio, and via the Internet at an unprecedented pace. These advertisements, however, are now routinely subjected to fact checking. The Washington Post , along with many other fact-checking organizations, such as PolitiFact, The AP Factcheck, and Factcheck.org, examine thousands of statements and political advertisements during campaigns to determine the accuracy of the claims. For instance, during the 2012 election cycle, PolitiFact had 36 reporters and editors working in 11 states producing more than 800 fact checks on the presidential campaign and hundreds more for candidates running for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

Comparing the views of superdelegates and Democratic voters in the 2008 Democratic nomination campaign

The struggle for the power to nominate candidates for office between party elites and rank-and-file partisans surfaced in the late 1700s. The battle endures today and superdelegates in the Democratic Party represent the contemporary political elites in the nomination process. Indeed, superdelegates played a decisive role in determining the outcome of the 2008 Democratic nomination campaign. In this paper, we examine the attitudes and decisions of superdelegates towards the candidates and their own role in the nomination process. We also examine the attitudes of rank-and-file Democrats towards the delegates and the nomination process. To study these two groups, we rely on survey data collected immediately following the 2008 primary season. Results from the surveys indicate that voters and superdelegates differ greatly in their perceptions of superdelegates, their roles and decisions, as well as the legitimacy of the nomination process in the Democratic Party. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings.

The Message Matters: The Influence of Fact-Checking on Evaluations of Political Messages

Fact-checks have become prolific in U.S. campaigns over the last ten years. As a result, fact-checks have become one of the easiest ways for individuals to analyze the truthfulness of politicians’ ...