Academic

Responding to Political Attack Ads

By Kathy Stanchi

It is no surprise to students of persuasion that the attempt of the McCain/Palin campaign to attack Obama by focusing on his relationship with Ayers has been successful. As much as people decry negative politics, politicians go negative because it works. Psychologist and expert on persuasion Robert Cialdini has noted that most people have no idea what persuades them and what doesn't.  So, it makes no sense to listen to people when they say that negative ads "turn them off" or don't persuade them. Negative information is incredibly powerful -- several times more powerful than positive information -- and politicians and their strategists know it.  So, forget about stopping it.   Negative campaigning will be with us for a long time.

But what to do about it? There's some evidence that revealing the manipulative effects of "going negative" might neutralize the power of political attacks. Negative information works on our subconscious, but when the tactic is revealed, the negative information is stripped of some of its power. One of the risks of negative campaigning is the "boomerang" -- that all that negativity will rebound back at you.  Revealing the tactic for what it is can help the boomerang effect.  So, some version of "they're trying to manipulate you with this negative information, but don't be fooled" can work.  It seems like the Obama campaign is hip to this. Recently, Joe Biden has been using this tactic by telling voters that the attacks are meant to distract them from the bigger issues in the election.  Good on you, Joe, but I think you need to be a little more direct and clear about it.  Verbosity is the enemy of persuasion (usually).

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on October 13, 2008 (boomark / email).