How does social media use influence political participation and civic engagement? A meta-analysis By John Wihbey Academic research has consistently found that people who consume more news media have a greater probability of being civically and politically engaged across a variety of measures. The Obama presidential campaigns in and and the Arab Spring in catalyzed interest in networked digital connectivity and political action, but the data remain far from conclusive.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. The increase in negative advertising has raised questions about the effects these types of ads may have on the electoral outcomes and the political process at large.
Indeed, many voters and political actors have assumed and argued that negative advertising will have negative consequences for American politics.
Although many news consumers and people interested in politics make many assumptions about the role of negativity in politics, the effect of campaign negativity on the political process is ambiguous.
If there is a relationship between negativity and political outcomes, this relationship is nuanced and conditional. Although negativity may, under certain conditions, have powerful effects on political outcomes, under other conditions the effects of negativity are minimal.
Moreover, while there is some research to suggest that this type of campaigning can produce negative consequences, other research suggests that negativity may—at times—be beneficial for the political process.
In contrast, in only There is widespread criticism of this deluge of negativity. Polls show that American voters dislike campaign negativity.
The widespread criticism of negativity suggests that negative advertising may have adverse consequences for the political process. As a result, a vast body of work has focused on the empirical relationship between negativity and political outcomes.
This scholarship is broad and diverse; most importantly, however, this research suggests that the effects of negativity are much more nuanced and conditional than the widespread criticisms of negativity would suggest.
Taken as a whole, the political science literature points to some ambivalence about the role of negativity in the political process.
Although some scholars have demonstrated that negative advertising can have negative consequences see, e. In this article we consider scholarship on campaign negativity, addressing both arguments that criticize its use and those that underscore its usefulness.
We do so by considering the key questions scholars have asked about the relationship between campaign negativity and American politics: We conclude with a discussion of the existing research on campaign negativity by turning to the remaining questions and explore avenues for future work.
What Is a Negative Advertisement? Although it is possible for candidates to rely on negative campaigning in their speeches, interviews, and websites e.
In turn, research on negative advertising has pointed to multiple ways of defining the concept. Other definitions suggest a middle category between positive and negative advertising.
A campaign advertisement, however brief typically 30—60 secondscan have more than one appeal. Whereas the above definitions focus solely on tone, other scholars have also focused on the type of negativity and the substance of the criticisms.
Although all negative ads have a similar tone i. Along with mudslinging, another potential consideration is incivility.
Brooks and Geerfor example, distinguish between negative messages that are civil and those that are delivered in a manner the voters may perceive to be uncivil.
Although these more fine-grained definitions offer a nuanced perspective to negativity, the umbrella definition of negativity as a criticism of the opponent is still relevant and useful.
Brooks and Geer too begin with the base definition of negativity as a criticism and from that point consider whether voters are more or less responsive to certain types of negativity. Suggesting that the positive—negative dichotomy can be a useful categorization in empirical research on advertising is not the same as suggesting that it is a consistently normatively useful distinction.The authors dissect media coverage, national polling, data about voters’ attitudes, the effects of Russian interference, the impact of social media on misinformation and the candidates’ messaging and overarching campaign strategies.
But the collective outrage focused on a top-down, big-money view of politics, well, that's so last century. If the goal of television ads is to motivate viewers to vote, volunteer, or give money, there are far better ways to reach people, thanks to the new media.
This collection of research papers on political science is an attempt to make fairly complex approaches in politics accessible to advanced undergraduate students and beginning graduate students. There is very little in the way of reference works in political science that are sufficiently accessible that students can profitably use them to.
The 12 questions of the online poll asked 1, social media users about whether they had used social media to do things broadly related to politics and, if they had, the effects, if any, that it had on them; about other political activity they may have undertaken; and about what sense of involvement and participation they had had in the.
Highly salient political information will reach even those least interested in politics, and since these people are susceptible to media effects, this information will likely affect public opinion, public agendas, and, possibly, approval of politicians.
Watch video · Analysis Interpretation of Another important question is whether social media has what social scientists would call an “independent causal effect” — that is, is it having a separate.