Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T15:21:49.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling Negative Campaigning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Stergios Skaperdas and
Bernard Grofman
Stergios Skaperdas
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Negative campaigning is an important aspect of campaign competition but plays little or no role in existing models of campaigns. Within the context of plurality elections for a single office we model the incentives that affect the use of negative campaigning. Under simplifying but still quite general assumptions we show a number of results, including the following key conclusions: (1) for two-candidate competition the front-runner will engage in more positive and less negative campaigning than the opponent; (2) in a three-candidate contest with one candidate clearly trailing by a large margin and playing mainly a spoiler role, that candidate will only engage in positive campaigning; and (3) in any three-candidate contest, no candidate engages in negative campaigning against the weaker of his two opponents, so that to the extent there is negative campaigning, it will be directed against the front-runner or it will come from the front-runner. These results have direct empirical applications to multicandidate primaries and nonpartisan contests and can provide insight into recent general elections as well.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , March 1995, pp. 49 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aldrich, John H. 1980. Before the Convention: Strategies and Chokes in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. “The Electoral Effects of Issues and Attacks in Campaign Advertising.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1993. “How Persuasive Are Campaign Advertisements?” University of California, Los Angeles. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, Adam, and Valentino, Nicholas. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political Science Review 88: 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aranson, Peter H., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1979. “Some Aspects of the Political Economy of Election Campaign Contribution Laws.” Public Choice 34:435–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aranson, Peter H., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1974. “Election Goals and Strategies: Equivalent and Non-equivalent Objectives.” American Political Science Review 68:135–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.” American Political Science Review 87:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiler, David. 1992. “Patriotic Pandering: Our Electoral Process is in a Crisis—as Always.” Campaign Issues, November, pp. 27–30.Google Scholar
Ben Zion, U., and Eytan, Z., 1975. “On Money, Votes, and Policy in a Democratic Society.” Public Choice 28:400–405.Google Scholar
Brams, Steven J., and Davis, Morton D.. 1975. “The 3/2's Rule in Presidential Campaigning.” American Political Science Review 68:113–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colantoni, Claude S., Levesque, T. J., and Ordeshook, P. C.. 1975. “Campaign Resource Allocations under the Electoral College.” American Political Science Review 69:141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, Peter. 1986. “Probabilistic Voting Models.” In Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol. 7, ed. Kotz, Samuel and Johnson, Norman L.. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Crain, W. M., and Tollison, R.. 1976. “Campaign Expenditures and Political Competition.” Journal of Law and Economics 19:177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Dresher, Melvin. 1981. The Mathematics of Games of Strategy. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Ehrenhalt, Alan A. 1985. “Technology, Strategy Bring New Campaign Era.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 55:2559–65.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1985. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1990. Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Charles. 1991. “Eschewing Objection? Campaigning and the Perception of U.S. Senate Candidates.” American Political Science Review 85:1193–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garramone, Gina M. 1984. “Voter Response to Negative Political Ads.” Journalism Quarterly 61:250–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garramone, Gina M. 1985. “Effects of Negative Political Advertising: The Roles of Sponsor and Rebuttal.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 29:147–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, ed. 1993. Information, Participation, and Choice: “An Economic Theory of Democracy” in Perspective. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Withers, Julie. 1993. “Information Pooling Models of Electoral Politics.” In Information, Participation, and Choice, ed. Grofman, Bernard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Thomas, and Humes, Brian. 1993. “‘What This Campaign Is All About Is ’: A Rational Choice Alternative to the Downsian Model of Elections.” In Information, Participation, and Choice, ed. Grofman, Bernard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, Joseph Jr., and Hess, Gregory D.. 1993. “A Theory of Campaign Strategy.” Johns Hopkins University. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter T.. 1970. “Plurality Maximization Versus Vote Maximization.” American Political Science Review 64:772–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, Jack. 1989. “Conflict and Rent-seeking Success Functions: Ratio Versus Difference Models of Relative Success.” Public Choice 63:101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald. 1978. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Peters, M. D., and Kinder, Donald. 1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not So Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.” American Political Science Review 76:848–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Cartee, Karen S., and Copeland, Gary A.. 1989. “Southern Voters' Reaction to Negative Political Ads in the 1986 Election.” Journalism Quarterly 66:888–93, 986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Cartee, Karen S., and Copeland, Gary A.. 1991. Negative Political Advertising: Coming of Age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kaid, Lynda Lee, and Davidson, D. K.. 1986. “Elements of Videostyle: Candidate Presentation through Television Advertising.” In New Perspectives on Political Advertising, ed. Kaid, L. L., Nimmo, Dan, and Sanders, K. R., Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Kellerman, K. 1984. “The Negativity Effect and Its Implications for Initial Interaction.” Communication Monographs 51:37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Montague. 1989. Thirty-second Politics: Political Advertising in the Eighties. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R. 1985. “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 30:119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, Charles, and March, James. 1975. Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, and Suppes, Patrick. 1965. “Preferences, Utility, and Subjective Probability.” In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 3, ed. Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E.. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Merritt, S. 1984. “Negative Political Advertising: Some Empirical Findings.” Journal of Advertising 13:27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Thomas, and McClure, Robert. 1973. Political Advertising: Voter Reaction to Televised Political Commercials. Princeton: Citizens Research.Google Scholar
Pfau, Michael, and Kenski, Henry T.. 1990. Attack Politics: Strategy and Defence. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roddy, B. L., and Garramone, Gina M.. 1988. “Appeals and Strategies of Negative Political Advertising.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 32:415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Shawn, Bohan, Lisa, McCafferty, Patrick, and Harris, Kevin. 1986. “The Image and the Vote: The Effect of Candidate Presentation on Voter Preference.” American Journal of Political Science 31:108–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shubik, Martin. 1954. “Does the Fittest Necessarily Survive?” In Readings in Game Theory and Related Behavior, ed. Shubik, Martin. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Skaperdas, Stergios. 1992. “Cooperation, Conflict, and Power in the Absence of Property Rights.” American Economic Review 82:720–39.Google Scholar
Skaperdas, Stergios. 1994. “Contest Success Functions.” University of California, Irvine. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick, Krantz, David H., Duncan Luce, R., and Tversky, Amos. 1989. Foundations of Measurement. Vol. 2. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
Surlin, Stuart H., and Gordon, Thomas F.. 1977. “How Values Affect Attitudes toward Direct Reference Political Advertising.” Journalism Quarterly 54:89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrance, Lance. 1982. Negative Campaigns and Negative Votes: The 1980 Elections. Washington: Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.Google Scholar
Thomas, Scott. 1990. “Negative Advertising Theory of Campaign Expenditures.” In Predicting Politics, ed. Mark Crain, W. and Tollison, Robert D.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1980. “Efficient Rent Seeking.” In Toward a Theory of the Rent-seeking Society, ed. Buchanan, J. M., Tollison, R. D. and Tullock, G.. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Weatherford, H. Stephen. 1993. “‘An Economic Theory of Democracy’ as a Theory of Policy.” In Information, Participation, and Choice, ed. Grofman, Bernard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Gordon S. 1978. “The Democratization of Mind in the American Revolution.” In The Moral Foundation of the American Republic, ed. Horowitz, R.. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Young, Michael L. 1987. American Dictionary of Campaigns and Elections. Lanham, MD: Hamilton.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Origins and Nature of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.