Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I even say who wrote them. If you have more recent summaries to add to this collection, send them my way I guess. Sorry for the ads; they cover the costs of keeping this online.
Sigelman and Kugler. 2003. Why is research on the effects of negative campaigning so inconclusive?. JOP 65: 142-60.
Despite the common wisdom that says negative campaigns matter, previous studies have failed to find consistently significant effects (Lau et al. 1999). Why?
Social scientists do not perceive negativity the way the public does. Social scientists code ads as negative if they focus on the opposing candidate instead of promoting the sponsoring candidate. But citizens don't all perceive the same ads as negative. First, it may take a lot of negative advertising before a significant number of people are even aware of the ads. But more importantly, people might be biased in predictable ways in their evaluation of an ad's negativity.
Using NES data from 1998 gubernatorial campaigns in California, Georgia, and Illinois campaigns (and comparing it with their coding of campaigns as "negative" according to content analysis of newspaper coverage and TV ads), the authors confirm all of their hypotheses.
Research by the same authors
Research on similar subjects