The author gratefully acknowledges the help of Monica Benavente and Annie Thomas in Study 1; Jason Corlett and Jennifer Lonergan in Study 2; and Angles Arriola, Andi Elacqua, Joachim Jantzen, Rosalio Medrano, and Miguel Silva in Study 3 in scoring the thought listings.
Effects of Negative Campaigning on Vote, Semantic Differential, and Thought Listing1
Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 28, Issue 23, pages 2131–2149, December 1998
How to Cite
Pentony, J. F. (1998), Effects of Negative Campaigning on Vote, Semantic Differential, and Thought Listing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 2131–2149. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01364.x
- Issue published online: 31 JUL 2006
- Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
In 3 studies, subjects were asked to vote on all positively described candidate vs. an opponent with a 1-sentence negative. In Study 1, the ail-positively described candidate was voted for more often, was rated higher on 10 of 13 semantic differentials, and generated more positive and less negative thoughts. In Studies 2 and 3, the positively described candidate was voted for more, was rated higher on the semantic differentials, and generated more positive and less negative thoughts in the regular negative condition. In the condition in which an independent nonpartisan committee declared the negative groundless, there was no significant difference in any dependent variables. These theories have important theoretical implications related to Johnson-Cartee and Garramone's theories.