How Negativity Can Increase and Decrease Voter Turnout: The Effect of Timing

References

• Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829–838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berent, M., Krosnick, J., & Lupia, A. (2011, September). Measuring voter registration and turnout in surveys: Do official government records yield more accurate assessments? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.
   Google Scholar
• Blais, A. (2004). How many voters change their mind in the month preceding the election? PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 801–803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brambor, T., Clark, W., & Golder, M. (2005). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 13, 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news and newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 172–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock, J. G., & Ha, S. (2011). Mediational analysis is harder than it looks. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinksi, & A. Lupia ( Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science ( pp. 508–524). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaffee, S. H., & Rimal, R. N. (1996). Time of vote decision and openness to persuasion. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody ( Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change ( pp. 267–292). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clinton, J. D., & Lapinski, J. S. (2004). “Targeted” advertising and voter turnout: An experimental study of the 2000 presidential election. Journal of Politics, 66, 69–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, S. C., Kane, J., & Gainous, J. (2005). Issue-related learning in a gubernatorial campaign: A panel study. Political Communication, 22, 483–503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djupe, P., & Peterson, D (2002). The impact of negative campaigning: Evidence from the 1998 senatorial primaries. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 845–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donsbach, W. (1991). Exposure to political content in newspapers: The impact of cognitive dissonance on readers’ selectivity. European Journal of Communication, 6, 155–186.
   Google Scholar
• Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G. (1998). A spot check: Casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 573–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, P., Fischer, J., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2010) Selective exposure to information: How different modes of decision making affect subsequent confirmatory information processing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 871–881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2004). Time-of-voting decision and susceptibility to campaign effects. Electoral Studies, 23, 661–681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, E. F., & Ridout, T. (2013). Negative, angry and ubiquitous: Political advertising in 2012. The Forum, 10, 51–61.
   Google Scholar
• Franz, M., Freedman, P., Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T. (2007). Campaign advertising and American democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, P., Franz, M., & Goldstein, K. (2004). Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 723–741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, P., & Goldstein, K. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1189–1208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geer, J. G (2012). The news media and the rise of negativity in presidential campaigns. PS: Political Science and Politics, 45, 422–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geer, J. G., & Geer, J. H. (2003). Remembering attack ads: An experimental investigation of radio. Political Behavior, 25, 69–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, K., Franz, M., & Ridout, T. (2002). Political advertising in 2000: Combined file. Madison: Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and voter turnout: New evidence for a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64, 721–740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T (2004). Measuring the effects of televised political advertising in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 205–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Simon, D. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 128, 3–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105, 765–789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. H. (1992). Dirty politics: Deception, distraction and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jewell, R. (2003). The effects of deadline pressure on attitudinal ambivalence. Marketing Letters, 14, 83–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. (2004). No holds barred: Negativity in U.S. Senate campaigns. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 42, 263–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogen, L., & Gottfried, J. (2011). I knew it all along! Evaluating time-of-decision measures in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. Political Behavior, 34, 719–736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasno, J., & Green, D. (2008). Do televised presidential ads increase voter turnout? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Politics, 70, 245–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krupnikov, Y. (2011). When does negativity demobilize? Tracing the conditional effect of negative campaigning on voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 796–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krupnikov, Y. (2012). Negative advertising and voter choice: The role of ads in candidate selection. Political Communication, 29, 387–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4, 353–377.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. Senate elections. Baltimore, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during an election campaign. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., & Rovner, I. (2009). Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 285–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw, K. (2011). Candidate impressions and evaluations. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinksi, & A. Lupia ( Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science ( pp. 187–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A., & Emmerson, K. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it?” Political Psychology, 31, 563–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romer, D., Kenski, K., Waldman, P., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). Capturing campaign dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey: Design, method, and data. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosentone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Schuck, A. R.T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2012). When good news is bad news: Explicating the moderated mediation dynamic behind the reversed mobilization effect. Journal of Communication, 62, 57–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. (2006). The race to 270: The electoral college and the campaign strategies of 2000 and 2004. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, D., Pham, L. B., Le, Q. A., & Holyoak, K. J. (2001). The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1250–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaperdas, S., & Grofman, B. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89, 49–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, D., Sullivan, J., Allen, B., & Alger, D. (2008). What’s good for the goose is bad for the gander: Negative political advertising, partisanship, and turnout. Journal of Politics, 70, 527–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 252–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vavreck, L. (2007). The dangers of self-reports of political behavior. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4, 325–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wattenberg, M. P., & Brians, C. (1999). Negative campaign advertising: Demobilizer or mobilizer? American Political Science Review, 93, 891–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar