Reprehensible, Laughable: The Role of Contempt in Negative Campaigning

DOI10.1177/1532673X19857968
AuthorSteven Katz,Kyle Mattes,Ira J. Roseman,David P. Redlawsk
Published date01 January 2020
Date01 January 2020
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19857968
American Politics Research
2020, Vol. 48(1) 44 –77
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X19857968
journals.sagepub.com/home/apr
Article
Reprehensible,
Laughable: The Role of
Contempt in Negative
Campaigning
Ira J. Roseman1, Kyle Mattes2,
David P. Redlawsk3, and Steven Katz1
Abstract
Negativity is common in political rhetoric and advertising, but its effects
are variable. One important moderator may be the specific emotions
communicated by the messages and potentially in recipients. Contempt
may be the emotion often conveyed by uncivil ads, which have attracted
considerable interest, particularly in light of increased partisan polarization.
Using data from web-based surveys in New Jersey and Iowa, we examine the
role contempt played in two U.S. Senate races in 2014. We find respondents
perceived contempt—more than anxiety or anger—in four televised negative
campaign ads and in candidates’ statements about opponents. Moreover,
respondents’ feelings of contempt toward candidates, though less intense
than feelings of anger, were of equal or greater significance than anger or
anxiety in predicting voting intentions regarding three of the four Senate
candidates across the two elections.
Keywords
contempt, elections, emotions, negative campaign, voting behavior
1Rutgers University–Camden, NJ, USA
2Florida International University, Miami, USA
3University of Delaware, Newark, USA
Corresponding Authors:
Kyle Mattes, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199, USA.
Email: kmattes@fiu.edu
Ira J. Roseman, Rutgers University CCAS, 311 N. Fifth St., Camden, NJ 08012, USA.
Email: ira.roseman@rutgers.edu
857968APRXXX10.1177/1532673X19857968American Politics ResearchRoseman et al.
research-article2019
Roseman et al. 45
Is Joni Ernst too extreme for Iowa?
—Opening statement from ad for Democrat Bruce Braley, running against
Republican Joni Ernst in the 2014 Iowa Senate race.1
He’s like a kid in a candy store.
—Republican Jeff Bell, on Cory Booker, his Democratic opponent in the 2014
New Jersey Senate race, in a TV news interview.2
Political campaign communications in the United States are most often nega-
tive (attacking an electoral opponent). For example, Motta and Fowler (2016)
estimated that 65% to 75% of televised congressional campaign ads since
2006 were negative in content. Campaign consultants tend to believe that
negative ads are effective (Iyengar, 2011), and studies have found that they
tend to be more memorable than positive ads (Lau, Sigelman, & Rovner,
2007). However, meta-analyses and reviews of the literature have failed to
find consistent effects of negative campaigning in persuading audiences to
vote for an attacker or against a targeted candidate (e.g., Lau et al., 2007;
Motta & Fowler, 2016).
The effects of negativity may be moderated by message and audience vari-
ables (e.g., Fridkin & Kenney, 2011). One feature that distinguishes types of
negative messages is their particular emotional content (e.g., does a negative
campaign ad convey anger, fear, or sadness; Fowler & Ridout, 2013). Ridout
and Franz (2011) suggest that “to understand the influence of political adver-
tising, one may need to move beyond the traditional categorization of ads as
positive or negative to consider the specific emotions that they elicit” (p. 80).
In this article, we review relevant theories of emotions and voting,
examine how the emotion of contempt has been distinguished from anger
by basic research over the past three decades, and investigate what role, if
any, contempt played in two recent U.S. Senate races. We find that con-
tempt was perceived to a greater extent than other more typically studied
negative emotions (anger and anxiety) in negative campaign ads and other
candidate statements about opponents. Moreover, voters’ feelings of con-
tempt toward candidates, though reported as being less intense than feel-
ings of anger, were of equal or greater significance in predicting voting
intentions regarding three of the four Senate candidates in these elections.
After presenting our findings, we discuss the importance of understanding
the role of contempt in influencing responses to negative advertising and
voter decision-making, and we argue for more research by political scien-
tists on this understudied emotion.
46 American Politics Research 48(1)
Emotions in Voting
After many years of thinking about political decision-making in a cognitively
oriented paradigm, political psychologists have more recently given a good
deal of thought to the role of emotions (see, for example, Brader & Marcus,
2013; Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000). Brader and Marcus (2013) cite
“rapidly accumulating evidence that emotions shape attention, decision-mak-
ing, attitudes, and action in the realm of politics” (p. 166). Emotions appear
to have particular impact on voting behavior (see Redlawsk & Pierce, 2017).
Emotions toward candidates have been found to be more important determi-
nants of voting than perceptions of the candidates’ traits (e.g., Abelson,
Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1982) and are seen as “key to the power of campaign
ads” (Brader, 2006, p. 179) as well as significant predictors of candidate eval-
uations, turnout, and voting choices in numerous elections (e.g., Marcus,
MacKuen, Wolak, & Keele, 2006; Valentino, Brader, Groenendyk,
Gregorowicz, & Hutchings, 2011).
However, mirroring a debate among emotion researchers (e.g., Barrett,
2006; Izard, 2007), leading theories about the role of emotions in voting dis-
agree on dimensional versus discrete emotion influence. For example, Lodge
and Taber’s (2013) John Q. Public (JQP) model maintains that voting is influ-
enced primarily by the dimensions of positive and negative affect. In con-
trast, affective intelligence theory (AIT; e.g., Marcus et al., 2000) holds that
specific emotions differentially influence political information processing
and subsequent behaviors (see also Halperin, Canetti, & Kimhi, 2012).
Advocates of the discrete perspective cite data indicating there are multiple
emotions (e.g., enthusiasm, anxiety or fear, anger or aversion) with distinct
effects on voting and other forms of political participation (e.g., Marcus et al.,
2006; Marcus et al., 2000; P. R. Miller, 2011). However, other analyses find
anxiety and aversion emotions loading onto a common factor or having simi-
lar effects on dependent variables (Brader, Valentino, & Suhay, 2008; Wirth,
Matthes, & Schemer, 2011). Ryan (2012) sees “terminological inconsisten-
cies” in AIT maintaining that “aversive” emotions motivate confrontation,
even though psychologists typically regard aversion as an emotion involving
avoidance; he finds—despite AIT’s prediction that anger, as an aversion
emotion, will decrease information seeking—that anger doubles the number
of clicks on online ads to obtain more information.
These inconsistent findings may result from complexities in conceptual-
izing and measuring the emotion variables. According to Brader and Marcus
(2013), aversion is defined as “a cluster of feelings that includes anger, dis-
gust, contempt, and hatred” (p. 179). Yet, many theorists view at least the first
three of these as distinct emotions (e.g., Ekman & Cordaro, 2011; Haidt,

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT