Inside the Black Box of Negative Campaign Effects: Three Reasons Why Negative Campaigns Mobilize

The debate over the effect of negative campaigns on vote turnout has not been settled. At present, studies demonstrating a mobilization effect seem to have the upper hand. However, neither side has offered a compelling theory of the causal mechanisms that connect negative campaigns and voter turnout. This paper identifies three mechanisms of voter motivation—republican duty, candidate threat, and perceived closeness of the election—and tests the influence of negative ads on each. The findings suggest that each works to plausibly translate exposure to negative advertisement into increased participation. Since Ansolabehere and his colleagues’ groundbreaking evidence of the demobilizing effects of negative campaigns (Ansolabehere, Iyengar, Simon, & Valentino, 1994), new research has begun to point in the opposite direction (Goldstein & Freedman, 2002). Negativity in campaigns is increasingly thought to mobilize rather than demobilize citizens, with a few important exceptions. Even so, the causal mechanisms of both the demobilization and mobilization hypotheses are underdeveloped. This paper explores three different explanations for why negative campaigns encourage rather than discourage turnout—stimulation of republican duty, anxiety toward the candidates, and perceptions of increased closeness of the race. Ultimately, all three paths for mobilization bear fruit.