Can You Back That Up?

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.