Patrick J. Kenney

Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship between Negativity and Participation

Does negative campaigning influence the likelihood of voting in elections? Our study of U.S. Senate campaigns indicates the answer is “yes.” We find that people distinguish between useful negative information presented in an appropriate manner and irrelevant and harsh mudslinging. As the proportion of legitimate criticisms increases in campaigns, citizens become more likely to cast ballots. When campaigns degenerate into unsubstantiated and shrill attacks, voters tend to stay home. Finally, we find that individuals vary in their sensitivity to the tenor of campaigns. In particular, the tone is more consequential for independents, for those with less interest in politics, and for those with less knowledge about politics.

The Relationship between Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes

This research examines the effect of divisive primaries on general election outcomes. Small group research is used to establish a theoretical framework for understanding the behavior implicit in the divisive primary hypothesis. We contend that the opposing sides in a primary battle develop in-group loyalties and out-group hostilities similar to those documented by social psychologists studying small group behavior. In order to empirically test this hypothesis, we develop a new measure of primary divisiveness. Previous research has failed to consider the divisiveness of one partys primary relative to the other partys primary when assessing the impact of divisiveness on general election outcomes. Using ordinary least-squares regression, we find that divisive presidential primaries do indeed have a deleterious effect on the general election results. Specifically, when one party has a divisive primary season while the other partys nominee is essentially uncontested, then the divided party will be adversely affected in November.

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 Effect of Primary Divisiveness in Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections

This study examines the relationship between primary divisiveness and general election results in gubernatorial and senatorial elections. Previous work in this area has been unable to substantiate this relationship. However, these inconclusive results may be due in part to conceptual and methodological shortcomings. We attempt to avoid such pitfalls in an effort to test the divisive primary hypothesis more effectively. Our study, which analyzes separately gubernatorial and senatorial elections, reveals that a divisive primary adversely affects a partys chance for general election victory. Curiously, the analysis also demonstrates that divisive primaries disadvantage senatorial candidates more than gubernatorial candidates, and Democratics more than Republicans.

The Psychology of Political Momentum

In this article we examine the psychological processes that lead people to display bandwagon behavior. Next, we test these theories against the momentum that got rolling for George Bush in the 1988 presidential prenomination campaign. The NES Super Tuesday panel data from that year provide the necessary data. Our results suggest that individuals switched to Bush for a variety of reasons. Some got caught up in the excitement of the momentum and threw their support to the vice president uncritically. Others backed him because they liked the feeling of supporting the favorite Still others reluctantly switched to him even though they liked another can didate better because they felt Bush had the nomination locked up. Finally, some people joined in the momentum because they became convinced that Bush had the best chance of carrying the Republicans to victory in November.

Presidential Prenomination Preferences and Candidate Evaluations

Recent research has altered our understanding of how voters select a candidate in U.S. presidential elections. Scholars have demonstrated empirically that issues, candidate personalities, candidate evaluations, and party identification interact in a dynamic simultaneous fashion to determine vote choice. Other researchers have shown that prenomination candidate preferences play an integral role in structuring the general election vote. We join together these two important trends to introduce and test a revised model of vote choice, using 1980 NES panel data. The results reconfirm that candidate selection is part of a dynamic simultaneous process and reveal for the first time that prenomination preferences are woven tightly into this causal web.

Voter turnout in presidential primaries: A cross-sectional examination

Decades of individual and aggregate level research suggest that three sets of factors influence voter turnout: the socioeconomic makeup of the potential voter; legal restrictions on voting; and the political context of each election. In this brief study, we use state-level data to test whether these factors combine to account for variations in turnout rates in the electoral arena of presidential primaries. As expected, high turnout is associated with states which have high median levels of education, lenient legal restrictions on voting, and a history of competitive two-party elections. Also congruent with our expectations, but at odds with research of other electoral arenas, high turnout in presidential primaries is unrelated to high campaign spending or close elections. We contend that spending in presidential primaries may be simply too low to stimulate turnout and that close primaries do not enhance turnout because voters are often unaware that the pending election will be close.

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.

EXPLAINING TURNOUT IN GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARIES

Voter turnout in gubernatorial primary elections varies tremendously from state to state. This analysis hypothesizes that the highly variable turnout is the result of specific circumstances unique to each election and to each state. Using multiple regression analysis, turnout in gubernatorial primaries was examined from 1968 to 1980. The analysis identified five variables that contribute to the variance in turnout across states.