Asymmetric Political Image Effects and the Logic of Negative Campaigning

Political marketing campaigns frequently use negative campaigning approaches, in which a candidate’s advertising criticizes an opponent, but the practice is controversial. Negative advertising in the 2012 US Presidential election was widely chastised in the media (Gabbatt 2012; Gye 2012), for being even more negative than its predecessor (Cordes 2012; Slack 2012). Despite considerable investigation by academics, there is little consensus on the effectiveness of negative campaigning (Merritt 1984; Lau et al. 1999; Lau et al. 2007; Chou and Lien 2010). Fewer scholars have discussed whether it may be more effective for some candidates than for others, but their suggestions include its: being more effective on issues where the campaigner is strongest (Damore 2002); being most effective for challengers against incumbents (Lau and Pomper 2002); having more usage appeal for trailing candidates than leaders (Skaperdas and Grofman 1995); and being most used by candidates who are perceived as weak on personal attributes (Harrington and Hess 1996). None of these papers explores how the tactical circumstances might dictate prescriptively which issues a political marketer ought to choose to suit a positive focus for a given candidate nor which issue focii might repay a negative approach.