ABSTRACT
We all hate “negative ads” in political campaigns. And the common wisdom is that they distort the truth, coarsen campaigns, alienate voters, raise levels of public cynicism, and harm our democracy. But careful, systematic scientific study by political scientists of both the content of such ads and the ways in which people process the information they receive from these ads shows us that such ads provide valuable information for citizens about candidates and issues, information that does, in fact, make them better-informed voters who are more strongly connected to the political process. In fact, there is much evidence to indicate that the emotional responses that these ads provoke and the information that they provide allow citizens to learn more from “negative ads” than from so-called “positive ads.” Furthermore, the information and emotional connections that these ads provide draws at least as many citizens into the political system, as it drives away. This does not mean that there are not negative ads that are deceptive, misleading, or unfair. But the focus of the media on this limited subset of cases, or the piling together of these cases of deceptive ads into a broader condemnation of “the negativity” of campaigns, may be at least as responsible for the cynicism about our political system that concerns so many as the actual content of the ads we so quickly blame. Better understanding of what we know about negative ads by those in the media and by the public at large, would place these ads into a clearer context and make the positive attributes that political scientists have identified have an even healthier effect on our democratic processes.
