Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 999–1020 | Cite as

Negative Campaigning in the Social Media Age: Attack Advertising on Facebook

Original Paper


Recent studies examine politicians’ decisions to use social media, as well as the content of the messages that these political actors disseminate on social media platforms. We contribute to this literature by examining how race competitiveness and a candidate’s position in the race relative to her opponent affect their decisions to issue attacks. Through content analysis of nearly 15,000 Facebook posts for tone (positive or negative), we find that while competitive races encourage both candidates to issue more negative posts, candidates in less competitive races embrace attack messages with more or less frequency depending on whether they trail or lead their opponent. We find that social media negativity is much more likely to be a desperation strategy employed by underdog candidates in less competitive races. We also run separate models examining the factors that drive policy and personal attacks. While underdog candidates are more likely to engage in issue attacks, candidates in competitive races are significantly more likely to use Facebook to make personal attacks.


Elections Campaigns Negativity Social Media 



We wish to thank Kristin Bender for her excellent research assistance. We also would like to thank Laura Olson, Chris Bonneau, Kris Kanthak, Mac Avery, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers at Political Behavior for their helpful comments and suggestions.


  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Politics, 53(1), 34–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Damore, D. F. (2002). Candidate strategy and the decision to go negative. Political Research Quarterly, 55(3), 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  5. Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2010). Timeless strategy meets new medium: Going negative on congressional campaign web sites, 2002-2006. Political Communication, 28(1), 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, H. K., Cordova, V., & Sipole, S. (2014). Twitter style: An analysis of how house candidates used twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS Political Science and Politics, 47(2), 454–462. doi: 10.1017/S1049096514000389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gainous, J., & Wagner, K. M. (2014). Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerber, A. S. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Lessons learned: Campaign advertising in the 2000 elections. Political Communication, 19(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon, A., Shafie, D. M., & Crigler, A. N. (2003). Is negative advertising effective for female candidates? An experiment in voters’ uses of gender stereotypes. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(3), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gulati, G. J., & Williams, C. B. (2015). Congressional campaigns’ motivations for social media adoption. In V. A. Farrar-Myers & J. S. Vaughn (Eds.), Controlling the message: New media in American political campaigns (pp. 32–52). New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hale, J. F., Fox, J. C., & Farmer, R. (1996). Negative advertisements in U.S. Senate Campaigns: The influence of campaign context. Social Science Quarterly, 77(2), 329–343.Google Scholar
  15. Kahn, K. F. (1993). Gender differences in campaign messages: The political advertisements of men and women candidates for U.S. senate. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 481–502.Google Scholar
  16. Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). The spectacle of US Senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Klotz, R. (1998). Virtual criticism: Negative advertising on the internet in the 1996 senate races. Political Communication, 15(3), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krehbiel, K., & Wright, J. R. (1983). The incumbency effect in congressional elections: A test of two explanations. American Journal of Political Science, 27(1), 140–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2001). Negative campaigning by US senate candidates. Party Politics, 7(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2005). It takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (2nd ed.). College Station, Texas: STATA Press.Google Scholar
  23. Morales, L. (2011). Google and facebook users skew young, affluent, and educated. Retrieved from Washington, DC. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146159/Facebook-Google-Users-Skew-Young-Affluent-Educated.aspx.
  24. Peterson, D. A. M., & Djupe, P. A. (2005). When primary campaigns go negative: The determinants of campaign negativity. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schattsneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  26. Sigelman, L., & Buell, E. H. (2003). You take the high road and i’ll take the low road? The interplay of attack strategies and tactics in presidential campaigns. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 518–531.Google Scholar
  27. Skaperdas, S., & Grofman, B. G. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, A. (2011). 22% of online Americans used social networking on Twitter for politics in 2010 campaign. Pew Internet.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2010). 8% of online americans use twitter. Retrieved from Washington, DC. http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/12/09/8-of-online-americans-use-twitter/.
  30. Stokes, D. E., & Miller, W. E. (1962). Party government and the saliency of congress. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(4), 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Straus, J. R., Glassman, M. E., Shogan, C. J., & Smelcer, S. N. (2013). Communicating in 140 characters or less: Congressional adoption of twitter in the 111th Congress. PS Political Science & Politics, 46(1), 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stromer-Galley, J. (2014). Presidential campaigning in the internet age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Theilmann, J., & Wihite, A. (1998). Campaign tactics and the decision to attack. The Journal of Politics, 60(4), 1050–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wagner, K. M., Gainous, J., & Holman, M. R. (2016). I am woman, hear me tweet! gender differences in twitter use among congressional candidates. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Clemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations