Negative campaigns spur voter deliberation while positive ones merely mobilize

Evidence

Contemporary popular debate has almost universally condemned campaigns that seem to rely heavily on “attack” commercials while, implicitly, endorsing “positive” themes—odd. Our data indicate that positive campaigns, ones that emphasize visionary goals or candidate accomplishments, should do little for conscious deliberation. Instead, they seem best viewed as mobilization or activation—devices that yield a citizen involvement free from the burden of choice. On the other hand, campaigns that spur concern about the current state of affairs would seem much more likely to motivate people to pay closer attention to public affairs, to engage their full capacities, and to make rational decisions. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1747 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Because election results bind all citizens, voting should proceed from joint deliberation — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 101; Positive campaigns suppress deliberation while anxiety-inducing ones promote it. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 1747; Negative identification against radical-right parties can raise democratic satisfaction. — Sabrina J. Mayer and Luana Russo, What one is not: a new scale to measure…, 96 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Positive campaign ads suppress deliberation while negative ads spur rational attention #expands (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1747