Negative Advertising and Voter Choice: The Role of Ads in Candidate Selection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting between two candidates during a campaign is a crucial first step toward political involvement: an individual who does not select a preferred political candidate is unlikely to take political action. Can negative campaign ads help individuals make these electoral choices? Empirical evidence on this topic has been mixed. Some argue that negativity can increase the likelihood of choice. Others show that negativity will decrease the likelihood of choice by turning individuals away from the polls. Integrating theories from social psychology and political science I argue and show that under specific conditions, negativity increases the likelihood that an individual will make a candidate selection. Further, I differentiate between the tone and substance of ads to show that negativity has a unique effect on choice. [Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Political Communication for the following free supplemental resource(s): Robustness checks. This supplemental appendix establishes the importance of the choice point in individual behavior and considers alternative conceptions of exposure to advertising.]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it