Abstract
Participants evaluated two candidates for the U. S. Senate (one a "shared-ideology" candidate with regard to the participant, the other an "opposing-ideology" candidate), each of which engaged in either a positive campaign (provided positive assessments of the candidate's character) or a negative campaign (provided negative assessments of the opposing candidate's character). Each participant read advertisements in which one candidate provided specific evidence to support his character assertions, whereas the other candidate did not provide such evidence. As predicted, evaluations of the shared-ideology candidate were significantly hurt by the failure to specifically support the character assertions. In contrast, evaluations of the opposing-ideology candidate were not damaged by the failure of the candidate to supply supporting evidence for the character assertions. In addition, effects extending and qualifying the synergistic interaction of the valence of competing campaigns were demonstrated. The roles of message valence, supporting evidence, and the in-group/out-group relationship between communicator and recipient in political communication are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
