Election '97: Negative campaigning works
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Despite politicians' pleas for a good, clean fight it seems they may be wasting their time. Scientific studies suggest what the spin doctors say - negative campaigning is remembered better and seen as more informative.
Given equal amounts of positive and negative information about a candidate, the overall impression of voters is skewed towards the negative, says a review of the data available in this month's Psychiatric Bulletin.
Dr Nicholas Beecroft, registrar at the Maudsley Hospital, London, who conducted the review, said that people have a generally positive view of others with the result that negative information is seen as more salient.
"If one expects the average person to be basically decent, honest and polite then if someone is presented as dishonest this would give a more marked impression," he said.
In one study a single negative sentence was enough to sway voters against a candidate, but different shortcomings were given different weight. People were presented with neutral information about two candidates which differed only in what the candidate was accused of.
"This single sentence was enough to sway the voters against the candidate. Adultery was less negative than corruption. [And] it did not matter whether the accusation came from a partisan or independent source," he added.
Dr Beecroft said that he personally thought the Tories' "demon eyes" campaign had been the most effective image in the run-up to this election: "It was very clever. It reminded people of last time when it looked like Labour were going to win and then at the last minute long standing fears made people change. Excessive fear is counterproductive.
"Although most people see negative campaigning for what it is and find it unethical, they still find it more informative."
But he warned that no politician could hope to win an election just by smearing their opponents. Emotions also played a larger part in how people voted than their beliefs about them. "If you look at past elections - Thatcher, Reagan - there are great emotional factors involved, the fact that someone was a great leader or they had a great story to tell. It is a phenomenon that is very difficult to pin down."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments