Skip to content

The positive effect of negative political ads

The ground has yet to thaw in most of Canada but the political mudslinging has already begun, and we can expect more now that we are in the midst of an election.

Canadians, a normally restrained and civil lot (at least off the hockey ice), have historically had weaker stomachs than their southern neighbors when it comes to strident and personal attack ads in the political arena.

The Conservative Party's most recent round of pre-election partisan advertising portrayed Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff as "reckless, dangerous and downright un-Canadian" and asserted that "He didn't come back for you." The ads were referring to the fact Ignatieff was living in Massachusetts and teaching at Harvard before coming back to Canada to run for public office.

The Liberal Party retaliated by aiming linguistic projectiles at Prime Minister Stephen Harper are normally reserved for despots, referring to him as "dictatorial" and to his administration as "the Harper regime."

When it comes to negative campaigning, genteel social norms get some pushback from psychological mechanisms that help give dirty politics an edge over keeping it clean.

For one thing, there's some evidence attitudes that are framed as being in opposition to a candidate are sturdier than attitudes in support of a candidate. In a 2005 study by George Bizer and Richard Petty, subjects read descriptions of political candidates.

Participants in one group were then asked to state which candidate they supported, while those in the other group were asked which candidate they opposed. Both groups had read exactly the same information about each candidate.

But when people were encouraged to frame their attitudes as oppositional, their opinions became harder to dislodge with later information that put their preferred candidate in a bad light. It was as if a negative attitude towards the other guy had inoculated them against the effects of incriminating information about the candidate they'd liked better at the outset.

It's a finding that does little to discourage pre-emptive strikes.

The timing of the Conservative ads, which were launched well before the events that provoked an election, may benefit the Harper government. Negative campaign messages can have a longer shelf-life than positive messages.

Normally, an ad has its greatest punch very soon after it's first seen.

However, a 1999 study by Ruthann Lariscy and Spencer Tinkham found that this was less true of negative campaign ads, whose persuasive impact actually grew over a period of several weeks, even when the source of the message was perceived as not very credible to begin with.

One possible explanation is that when people first see the negative ad, they have a bad taste in their mouths at what they feel are unfair tactics, and this makes them less immediately receptive to the attack on the opponent.

However, this queasy feeling dissipates fairly quickly while the negative impression that sticks to the opponent is more durable.

All of this leads me to suspect that while Canadians may still express plenty of disgust at all this undignified political discourse, their politics may soon come to look a lot more like their hockey.

Dr. Julie Sedivy is a professor of linguistics and psychology at the University of Calgary.