Goldstein and Freedman's 2002 study hypothesizes that negative political advertising will lead to more voter involvement and stimulation rather than demobilizing their involvement. Data for this study included previous tracking data from the 1996 National Election Study, combined with their own national ad-tracking data. This data was obtained by the Campaign Media Analysis Group which monitors and codes political advertising activity on all major broadcast and cable networks. Researchers coded political advertisements from the 1996 Election as either positive or negative with specific definitions of what constituted each. This data was combined with the NES data to determine the number of media market viewers, and the size of the audience during specific time slots. Research found that all else being equal, exposure to positive ads will have little or no effect on probability of voting, while exposure to negative ads will slightly increase probability of voting. Goldstein and Freedman's study does a good job of pointing out problems in past research and correcting for these problems within their own 2002 study. However, their conclusion that the probable increase in voting is due to increased concern and believed importance in an election, although a possible solution does not seem to be specifically supported by any of their research.
These researchers point out that the exact definition of negative advertising is often confused with comparative advertising, and work to define the difference between these two concepts. Negative advertising is then evaluated using several advertising and communication theories. The research article concludes with a proposal of 13 different study proposals that the authors believe, that if done, will provide conclusive evidence about the effects of negative political advertising. This research is useful in finding other studies and authors related to negative advertising, but by nature of the research, come to no conclusions about.....
Click here to buy this essay.
