Positive campaign ads suppress deliberation while negative ads spur rational attention

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

Categorization

• SEED: Essay angle: the case for ‘attack ads’ as democratic virtue — how the civic commonsense against negative campaigning is backwards on deliberative grounds.
• QUESTION: Does ‘grand parades in the collective fantasy’ under success imply a desirable limit on enthusiasm-driven mobilization?
• XREF: connects to: Positive campaigns suppress deliberation while anxiety-inducing ones promote it. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 1747