Negative Campaigning in Eastern Europe: How Are Emotional Appeals and Negativity Used in Local Municipal Elections in Lithuania?
Simona Pargaliauskaite 10841989
Graduate School of Communication Political Communication Supervisor: Judith Möller
Abstract
This study expands the small empirical evidence on municipal level negative campaigning and further develops American and European literature. This study analyzes the tone of campaigns and usage of negative emotional appeals in the Lithuanian municipal level 2015 mayoral
election. It concludes that political power status, time, ideological position and media channel are important aspects of negative campaigns. The most salient findings prove that challengers tend to attack more than incumbents, especially in debates, which are seen as the last opportunity to persuade voters. Therefore, this study bridges the gap surrounding the knowledge of negative campaigning in Eastern Europe and can aid not only political researchers and consultants but also, the Mayor’s team in the Municipality of Klaipėda, Lithuania.
Keywords: negative campaigning; negative emotional appeals; multiparty system; candidates; mayoral election;
Introduction
Developed democracies hold highly professionalized political campaigns where candidates make a set of interrelated decisions about how to gain the support of the electorate. These decisions are mainly based on estimations of the costs and benefits associated with the candidate’s choices (Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010). Often this leads to a strategy framed around negative and positive categories which allows candidates to pride themselves and highly criticize the opposition. This is called “negative-positive” or “attack” politics (Damore, 2002; Djupe & Peterson, 2002; Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010; Walter & Vliegenthart, 2010; Walter, Brug, & Praag, 2014, etc.). For example, in Abraham Lincoln’s first bid for election in 1860, the opposition described Lincoln as a fool, an idiot, and an ape, to name just few (Cartee & Copeland, 1991). This refers to the “mudslinging”, which is part of the negative strategy.
Researchers suggest that it is not just the facts about candidates and issues provided during the campaign that matters, but also how candidates talk about it (Brader, 2006). Studies argue that emotional characteristics of political communication and emotional responses of the electorate can alter how citizens process information and, as a consequence, make political choices (Huddy & Gunnthorsdottir, 2000; Lodge & Taber, 2000). Therefore, emotional appeals are widely used in advertising, and particularly in the negative-positive campaigning strategy, because of the strong effect they have on citizens’ reactions (Holbrook, 1993; Shimp, 1981). In other words, citizens who feel confident about elections are more likely to act on partisan habits, whereas those who feel fear or anger are more likely to be attracted by new information and vote on the basis of issue judgments (Brader, 2006). Thus, candidates use emotional appeals to elicit different emotions to persuade voters for their own benefits.
Many researchers focus on the findings of negative and positive campaigning in the USA, meaning there is a wealth of literature available on the subject, even though negative rhetorical strategy has only been scientifically studied in political science for two or three decades (Cartee & Copeland, 1991; Fridkin & Kenney, 2004, 2008; Geer, 2006; Lau & Pomper, 2004). Studies concerning the use of negative campaigning are largely developed with reference to the
American two-party system, and suggest that it is hard to apply to the European proportional electoral (multiparty) system, where many parties compete against each other. However, more recently, evidence shows that negative campaigning and research associated with it, has crossed borders as similar campaign tactics have been observed also in Europe. There are a few, typically single-case campaign studies that exist in the European multiparty context (Elmelund-Præstekær 2008, 2010, 2011; Hansen & Pedersen 2008; Holtz-Bacha 2001; Heerde-Hudson 2011; Walter & Vliegenthart 2010).
However, despite fewer studies on Western Europe and Scandinavia; in Eastern Europe there has been no attempt to characterize negative campaigning or emotional appeals within political campaigns. Under these circumstances, this study focuses on Lithuania, a Baltic state which is a developing democracy with an existing multiparty political system and Liberal media system (Balčytienė, 2009; Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Jurkynas, 2007).
Moreover, most of the Western studies focus only on national level campaigning (Buell & Sigelman, 2008; Fridkin & Kenney, 2004; Lau & Pomper, 2004), meaning there is a clear gap of research on municipal level elections (Krebs & Holian, 2007). Likewise, there are only a few studies on the political behavior of lower power holders, i.e. mayors (Krebs & Holian, 2007). For this reason, this paper focuses on the 2015 mayoral election in Lithuania. This was a unique election because it was the first time in independent Lithuania (since 1990) that mayors were
elected directly by the citizens. Before this, mayors were elected by members of the council (General Electoral Committee of Lithuania, 2016). Therefore, this study holds significance for Lithuanian politicians who are running under new system. In addition, this study is also unique as it compares different media channels, both controlled and free media. Previous research tended not to focus on free media, and media messages were seldom mixed with non media messages (Walter, 2012; 2014).
This particular Lithuanian case is relevant for other Eastern European countries, since most campaigns follow the American style and there is a clear gap of researches focused on post Soviet systems. Accordingly, investigating political campaigning strategies is crucial in
politically unstable countries like Lithuania, where the previous occupation by the Soviet Union slowed down political development. This meant that there were no scientific investigations for many years due to Soviet censorship. As a result, this study opens new opportunities to grasp latest aspects of political communication that were never investigated before.
To summarize, this paper aims to contribute to existing studies by examining whether negative campaigning and emotional appeals are a typical ‘American’ phenomenon and relevant only in America and Western Europe. Or can these be also found in Eastern Europe, particularly in Lithuanian municipal level elections. The research question is:
To what extent were negative campaigning and negative emotional appeals used in different media channels during the 2015 municipal level mayoral elections in the Lithuanian city of Klaipėda?
Theoretical background
“Voters will tell you in focus groups that they don’t like negative ads, but they retain the information so much better than the positive ones. The point is: People like dirty laundry. Why do tabloids sell?” (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 1991, p.15).
Defining negative campaigning
It is hard to imagine an election that would be without some degree of both positive and negative campaigning. Democracy allows politicians running for office to promote their own image and question the opposition (Brooks & Geer, 2007). However, political discourse suggests that campaigning nowadays often goes beyond the main function to inform, and instead becomes excessively harsh (Brooks & Geer, 2007). Thus examination of negativity within the political field became a great focus of various scholars not only discovering features of negative campaigning (Damore, 2002; Kahn & Kenney, 2004; Lau & Pomper, 2004; Theilmann & Wilhite, 1998), but also their effects on voters’ turnout (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Brooks & Geer, 2007; Kahn & Kenney, 2004).
More specifically, during any campaign, candidates focus on their own accomplishments (positive messages) or failures of others (negative messages), or combine both (Brooks & Geer, 2007). Studies of campaign advertising also commonly consider a third type of ad message - comparative or contrast ads, which focus both on the opponent and the sponsor of the ad (Brooks & Geer, 2007). Moreover, there is The Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse, which suggests that there are three main functions within a campaign strategy: acclaiming (self-praise, which is positive), attacking (criticism of the opponent, which is negative) and defending (responses to attacks, which is called refutation) (Benoit, Blaney & Pier, 1998, 2000; Benoit,
1999; Benoit & Harthcock, 1999). Only situational factors influence which part will be more developed than others.
However, there is an ongoing discussion among political scientists as to how best define the concept of negativity. As a result, politicians, political consultants, journalists, the electorate, and scholars often fall to harsh arguments while discussing negative campaigning (Walter, 2012). First of all, in some studies negativity is only equivalent to attacks: “<…> all forms of attack on the opponent, for example, when party or candidate attacks the other candidate personally, the issues for which the other candidate stands, or the party of the other candidate” (Skaperdas & Grofman, 1995, p.49). The attack is often related to criticism (Geer 2006; Hansen & Pedersen, 2007; Lau & Pomper 2004; Surlin & Gordon 1977; Walter & Vliegenthart, 2010). To be more precise, Sanders and Norris (2005) define negative campaigning as “criticizing the record of the opposing party or parties; questioning the judgment, experience and probity of opposing leaders and generating fear about what the future might hold if the opposing party or parties were in power” (p. 526).
In other studies, negativity is understood as misleading communication, often called “mudslinging”. This concept is used when campaigning refers to spurious campaigning, often called ‘poison’ or ‘dirty politics’, where campaigning is considered to be dishonest, unfair, irrelevant, or manipulating (Jamieson, Waldman & Sherr, 2000).
Finally, negativity is identified by rhetoric and tone of messages which is often highly accompanied by emotions (Brader, 2006; Franz & Ridout, 2007). Emotional appeal can be described as “any communication that is intended to elicit an emotional response from some or all who receive it” (Brader, 2006, p. 68 – 69). An advertisement with emotional appeal can contain different emotional cues – visual or verbal (colors, pictures, music, words, etc.) (Aslam,
2006; Bradley & Lang, 2000). Most of the studies of emotional appeals focus on TV ads where visualizations and sounds are essential cues:
“<…> messages are extremely negative, containing ad hominem attacks on candidates, peppered with dark images, threatening music and shrill and harsh language” (Fridkin & Kenney, 2012, p.174).
“Political commentators often describe negative campaigning in pessimistic terms, pointing to the unconstructive tone and devastating effects negative campaigning presumably has on the general political debate” (Hansen & Pedersen, 2007, p.3).
Usually in content analysis studies, researchers use a range of positive categories, such as compassion, nostalgia, ambition, reassurance, intimacy, trust, hope, national and local pride, and negative categories, for example uncertainty, guilt, anger, fear and sadness (Brader, 2006; Kern, 1989; Ridout & Franz, 2011).
What is clear is that, for researchers, defining negativity has been an issue “especially for those doing content analyses of political advertising” (Kaid & Holtz-Bacha, 2006, p.19). It is a complex concept that can be researched from many perspectives. However, for this study, negativity includes the previously mentioned concepts: “the message presented in the ad or article that includes attack, criticism, “mudslinging”, offensive images or statements and harsh rhetoric”.
Effects of negative campaigning
Negative communication is widely used by both media and politicians because of its strong effects on citizens’ decision making (Cartee & Copeland, 1991). First of all, negative ads often produce greater information gains which are more memorable: voters are more likely to remember negative information about candidates in comparison to positive information (Basil, Schooler, & Reeves 1991; Brians & Wattenberg, 1996; Kahn & Kenney, 2000; 2004; Lau, 1982; Newhagen & Reeves, 1991; Niven, 2006). This is due to the fact that negative information induces fear in peoples’ minds and resonates with motivations to avoid costs rather than to achieve gains (Cartee & Copeland, 1991). There are numerous examples of political messages during campaigns that identify events or situations that voters should avoid (for example, my opponent will raise taxes, etc.) (Brians & Wattenberg, 1996; Fridkin & Kenney, 2012; Kahn & Geer, 1994).
Fridkin & Kenney (2012) emphasize that citizens’ busy routine is what makes them less engaged in politics. Thus, ads that include threatening information and warn of ‘dangers’ is more attention grabbing, which implies that negative messages might shape the beliefs of potential voters (Cartee & Copeland, 1989; Fridkin & Kenney, 2012; Lau, 1982). Negative information is also unique, making it more likely to be deeply processed (Kahn & Kenney, 1999; Lau, 1982). Accordingly, Kellerman (1984) claims that there is a tendency for negative information to be weighed more heavily than positive information when forming evaluations of social stimuli: “Across widely varying events, settings, and persons, positive experiences or positive aspects of stimuli have been found to be less influential in the formation of judgments than are negative experiences or negative aspects of stimuli” (Cartee & Copeland, 1991, p.15). Consequently, the
above benefits lead political consultants and politicians to ‘go negative’ in their political campaign strategy.
When do politicians go negative?
The basic aim of any political campaign strategy is simple: maximize the number of positive messages about yourself as well as the number of negative messages about your opponent (Damore, 2002; Elmelund-Praestekaer, 2010; Iyengar & McGrady, 2007). In order to do that, candidates or their consultants calculate their decisions based on various reasons.
Previously conducted studies show that generally politicians choose negativity as their strategy when they are behind in the polls (Harrington & Hess, 1996; Skaperdas & Grofman, 1995), when they are limited with their budget, when they are the opposition (Kahn & Kenney, 1999), when they are males (Lau & Pomber, 2001), or when the Election Day approaches (Damore, 2002; Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010). Similarly, candidates in multiparty systems tend to go negative “when they are in danger of not passing the representation threshold, unable to establish or maintain cooperation with other parties, or in a coalition that as a whole has poor polls” (Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010, p.141).
More specifically, most of the studies conducted in the American context of negative campaigning emphasize that challengers tend to use negative campaigning more than incumbents (Benoit et al., 2000; Damore, 2002; Fridkin & Kenny, 2004; Haynes & Rhine, 1998; Lau & Pomper, 2004). This is defined as the competition model. This model explains that challengers tend to use more negativity because their competitive position is a threat to the other candidates (Ansolabehere & Iyengar 1995; Haynes & Rhine, 1998). Challengers can only talk about what can happen in the future or only promise what they would do if they were elected. As such, challengers’ promises are seen to be abstract compared to the incumbents’ tangible and proven
record. On the contrary, incumbents use more positive messages because they can stress their former performance, i.e. they can talk about their previous successfully implemented work, hence are more in favor in the eyes of voters (Hansen & Pedersen, 2007; Trent & Friedenberg, 2000).
A study analyzing the European election campaigns within the Danish multiparty system by Elmelund-Præstekær (2010) proves that European elections are no different when it comes to proximity to power. Incumbents were attacked more often than challengers. Another European study also supports that challengers’ attack (or defense) is largely framed around the argument of the incumbent (Hansen & Pedersen, 2008). However the challengers were able to control the message of the incumbent as they used the attack to elicit a response from their opposition. It means that challengers are controlling the message of their opponents as they are controlling their own messages (Damore, 2002).
Other than the above studies, studies on negativity within the European political context are limited. There is no evidence how power position influence Eastern European municipal level competition. Therefore this leads to the first hypothesis of this paper:
H1a: In the municipal level campaign, challengers are more likely to engage in negative campaigning than an incumbent, within paid ads.
H1b: In the municipal level campaign, challenges are more likely to engage in negative campaigning than an incumbent, during debates.
A number of studies show that candidates tend to rely more on negative campaigning as Election Day approaches (Damore, 2002; Haynes & Rhine, 1998; Ridout & Franz, 2011). This is because at the beginning of the campaigning period candidates have to focus on positively defining themselves, and their position. Focusing on the negative campaigning too soon can
mean that voters will see the candidate in a bad light. Thus, attacks that appear at the end of the campaign may be beneficial for at least two reasons. Firstly, it may be difficult to increase voters’ support with only positive messages after they introduced themselves so they need something more attention grabbing. Secondly, by waiting to go negative until after they have positively established themselves, candidates may be perceived as more credible, which may increase the success of their attacks (Damore, 2002; Haynes & Rhine, 1998). This leads to the second hypothesis:
H2: The frequency of negative messages, across different media channels, is more likely to increase as the Election Day approaches.
In multi-party political systems, negative campaigning is perceived to be different compared to the two-party system found in USA (Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010; Hansen & Pedersen, 2008) because candidates face more competition than those in the American system. To begin with, in the multi-party system, candidates need to contrast themselves with their opponents. The range of parties or candidates is wide and tangled, and often consists of intra-party candidates who generally hold similar issue positions (Norrander, 1986). When the political field is crowded, the electorate pays little attention. Consequently, this pushes
candidates to distinguish themselves from their opponents, both within and outside their party. Needless to say, this must involve comparison, which often takes a negative form (Haynes & Rhine, 1998).
Similarly, problems arise in relation to ideological positioning. During the campaign, candidates are placed on a liberal-conservative ideological spectrum or right-left political wing. Usually, candidates are aware of their own and their opponents' position. Therefore, if a
eliminating the opponent who is closest to his position in order to pilfer those supporters (Haynes and Rhine, 1998). European researchers also found evidence that the more ideologically extreme party is, the more it argues with its opponents (Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010). In Lithuanian context, within municipal level elections candidates that fall in the sample were representing only left and centre left-right political dimension. This leads to the third hypothesis:
H3: Left wing candidates are more likely to engage in negative campaigning than parties in the center of the traditional left / right dimension.
Further literature also suggests that candidates often go negative when they are new in the political arena. Being novel attracts attention even if it is for a short time. Thus, new parties (or candidates) that have not been represented before are expected to be less popular and
recognizable. Therefore, negative campaigning may be less risky as a result (Haynes & Rhine, 1998). Additionally, new candidates or parties have no reputation to lose and are free to
challenge the established parties. As a result, new political candidates may face less harmful side effects that come with negative campaigning (Elmelund- Præstekær, 2010), such as the
“backlash” or “boomerang effect” (Cartee & Copeland, 1991; Garamone, 1984). In theory, it is expected that candidates or parties will use negative campaigning strategy only when the benefits outweigh the potential risks (Walter, 2012). This leads to another hypothesis:
H4: First time candidates are more likely to engage in negative campaigning than previously known candidates.
Emotional appeals
Emotional appeals come within the larger concept of negativity and many studies have shown that campaign consultants use emotions as an essential component of their advertising strategy (Boiney & Paletz, 1991; Kern, 1989; Perloff & Kinsey, 1992). For example, Americans
were exposed to over a million ads on television in 2004. Many of which were trying to elicit fear or anger (Brader, 2006; 2005). Brader (2006) also pointed out that fear (worry/anxiety) and enthusiasm (hope/joy), were the emotions, most commonly found in political campaigns. These emotional appeals, according to scholars, work by “building up” the sponsor or “tearing down” the opposition (Franz & Ridout, 2011).
To explain this further, affective intelligence theory¹ describes the role of different emotions in relation to social decisions. This theory suggests that the basis of voting choice may depend on affective intelligence or the extent to which the political environment elicits emotion (Marcus, Neuman & MacKuen, 2000). In other words, signs of success which elicit enthusiasm encourage citizens to remain loyal to their attitudes. In contrast, threatening signs which trigger fear attracting attention to counter any danger. Experiments have shown that campaign ads containing these emotions produce political judgments and motivate voters to pay greater attention to related information in the news media and also to seek out more information from other sources (Marcus at al., 2000; Brader, 2006).
This leads to the relationship between message tone and emotional appeal, because as various studies show, message tone and emotional valence often match (Brader, 2006; Ridout & Franz, 2011). For example, a content analysis of American ads showed that 83 percent of
enthusiasm and pride ads promoted the sponsor, while 69 percent of fear and anger ads were attacking the opponent (Brader, 2006). This is due to the incumbent enhancing his power by appealing to enthusiasm, and the challengers encouraging voters to rethink default choices by appealing to fear. The same can be applied to competitiveness: the more intense electoral competition and the closer the Election Day is, the higher the frequency of negative emotions (Brader, 2006). This leads to the fifth hypothesis:
H5: The frequency of emotional appeals will differ significantly across media channels. The Role of News Media
Modern political communication is highly mediated and news media is essential as the main source of political information for most citizens, both in daily life and during elections (Strömbäck & Dimitrova, 2006). The literature suggests that even though other ways of direct communication exist, they have not replaced mass media (Plasser & Plasser, 2002). Free media coverage sometimes can be crucial for candidates’ success since most candidates cannot afford to run full campaigns due to limited funding. Therefore, they must rely on intermediaries such as newspapers, radio and television to get their message across to the public (Haynes & Rhine, 1998).
Television is the most important source of information prior to elections. More specifically, television debates have become central for political communication in advanced societies (Aalberg & Jenssen, 2007). Researchers suggest that voters postpone their voting decision until the final weeks of the campaign, and mass media, especially television, are their main and sometimes the only source to reach voters (Haynes & Rhine, 1998). Firstly, televised debates are the best way to reach a large audience of citizens (Benoit & Sheafer, 2006) as they force candidates to acknowledge each other’s positions (Benoit & Sheafer, 2006). Television also affords the opportunity to use experiential intimacy and audiovisuals to elicit emotions from the audience (Benoit & Sheafer, 2006). Moreover, personal performance and charisma during the debate attract more attention in candidate-oriented systems and provide competitors the
opportunity to be more visible and recognizable among other politicians (Aalberg & Jenssen, 2007).
Debates are considered to be more important than news coverage in providing the last chance to attract or convince voters to vote for the certain candidate and therefore use negativity to weaken the opponent’s power (Aalberg & Jenssen, 2007). Some studies have proven that candidates attack when they have the opportunity, such as during the debates (Benoit & Sheafer, 2006; Haynes & Rhine, 1998; Skaperdas & Grofman, 1995). In addition, during debates, some candidates that use a positive tone are greatly influenced to respond to an attack in a negative way (Damore, 2002; Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010; Haynes & Rhine, 1998). This leads to the following hypotheses:
H6a: The level of negativity is highest during the debates, in comparison to the other media channels.
H6b: Challengers are more likely to use negative emotional appeals than incumbents during debates.
In general, news media generates more campaign coverage when there is greater
competition (Haynes & Rhine, 1998). Thus, there should also be an increase in the focus on the campaign and candidates in the news media. Since the nature of media coverage turns to the horse race during competitive periods, according to the literature, the coverage is likely to include anti-rival activity (Haynes & Rhine, 1998). The opposite comes when competition fades. Free media is expected to focus on the horse race less, where coverage in general may decrease, leading to fewer opportunities for negativity. This leads to the last hypothesis:
H7: Negativity is more likely to be found in paid media (high political control) than in free media (low political control).
Case study
Lithuanian municipal council and mayoral elections were held on 15 March, 2015. It was the 8th municipal elections in independent Lithuania. However, these particular elections were the most prominent due to the fact that for the first time in Lithuania mayors were elected directly by the citizens (before the new legislation, mayors were elected by the members of the council) (General Electoral Committee of Lithuania, 2016). These restructured rules suggest that there may be some changes in political arena during local level elections. Moreover, studies show that local political campaigns are already unlike as it creates different incentives for attacks than in other electoral contexts. This is due to the sequencing of primary and runoff elections (Krebs & Holian, 2007). For example, in the local elections candidate needs to win the majority votes on the first ballot in order to continue. Therefore, there is higher competition in different time periods and on the wide spectrum of ideologically different candidates. I assume that all above mentioned circumstances may have an effect on local level elections and an existing theory of negative campaigning can be generalized to local level politics.
Method Research design
The Research question will be answered by means of a quantitative content analysis, as this can provide ways of measuring the same variables across time and across cultures (Kaid & Holtz-Bacha, 2006). Most social research methods focus on observations of stimuli and
responses, differentiating characteristics, describing behaviors and quantifying social conditions, but content analysis “goes outside the immediately observable physical vehicles of
consequences of communications, thus rendering the context of data analyzable” (Krippendorff, 1989, p. 403). Thus, for this study content analysis has been chosen to investigate the presence of negativity during the chosen political campaign and aims to explain why politicians chose to go negative.
The codebook was designed to focus on negative political campaigning and emotional appeals. The data set of the content analysis is also specific as it focused on negativity usage within different media channels: paid ads, newspaper and debates. The message of the advertisement, article or debate is the research unit. Negativity and emotional appeals are
variables. The coding scheme was based on earlier established measures from previous studies of negative campaigning as these studies have been proven to be successful and reliable (Brader, 2006; Cartee & Copeland, 1991; Geer & Brooks, 2007; Geer, 2006; Hansen & Pedersen, 2008; Ridout & Franz, 2011).
To conduct an inter-coder reliability check, 10 percent of the research units were
randomly selected and coded independently by two different coders. In order to see whether the variables are reliable and can be analyzed, Krippendorff’s alpha (α) was calculated for all relevant variables (see table 1 in Appendix A). Most of the variables had a α value of 0.80, however, some of variables failed to reach this level. This could be explained by the fact that negativity and emotions, and also their frequencies, are hard to identify as it can be interpreted from different points of view. Nevertheless, the test of Krippendorff shows that these variables still can be used for the further analysis.
Sampling
This study uses a purposive sample, as ads were gathered from a particular election during a particular year (Kaid & Holtz-Bacha, 2006). Data consists of information covering six
candidates who campaigned in the municipal level mayoral election. The whole list of candidates consisted of twelve candidates, however, for this study, only six were chosen as a representative sample. The time frame of the sample was drawn according to the legal period of campaigning allowed by the Central Electoral Commission of Lithuania: six months before Election Day. Therefore, content was collected from 1st of September, 2014, till the Election Day (15 of March, 2015).
This sample is unique as it combines media messages with non media messages. More specifically, there are paid ads created on behalf of each candidate (n = 194), newspaper prints (n = 143) and tv/radio debates (n = 5). The whole data consists of 406 (N = 406) items (see Table 2 in Appendix A).
Paid ads: The majority of advertisements were collected directly from the candidates or their consultants during direct meetings. However, some ads were extracted from the Internet from personal websites of the candidates and social media. There are different categories of paid ads: flyers (n = 57), articles in established candidate’s newspapers (n = 73), paid articles in local or national newspapers (n = 7), press releases (n = 5), public letters (n = 3), articles or ads on websites (n = 42).
Debates: There were five debates aired before the Election Day. Debates were coded per question to the candidate, therefore the sample was multiplied (n = 112). An important point to mention is that, the debates were held in the last period of campaigning where only two
candidates were competing: Agnė Bilotaitė (challenger) and Vytautas Grubliauskas (incumbent). Free media: The local newspaper “Vakarų Ekspresas“ was chosen for the sample.
100 articles mentioned candidates and were subsequently coded for negativity (n = 100). Newspaper editions were extracted from the archive of this particular newspaper.
Measures
Time: This variable was measured by coding the full date the research unit was released. This variable was chosen based on previous research which found that a candidates' decision to attack is affected by the proximity to the Election Day (Damore, 2002; Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010; Ridout & Franz, 2011). Later, the variable time (N = 406) was recoded into seven periods that reflect the months prior the Election Day: 1 = 1/09/14 (6%), 2 = 01/10/14 (5%), 3 = 01/11/14 (5%), 4 = 01/12/14 (6%), 5 = 01/01/15 (14%), 6 = 01/02/15 (29%), 7 = 01/03/15 (35%).
Media channel: This variable refers to the media channel the ad / article belongs to: paid ads (48%), free media (25%), or debates (28%). Questions in the codebook were similar among all three channels; however, they differed slightly for newspaper coverage. The coding scheme for newspaper articles did not include questions about ideology or proximity to power, as these were not applicable. For the purpose of the last hypothesis, the media channel was recoded into a binary variable: 1 = paid media, 2 = free media (this consisted of free media and debates).
Ideology: This variable was measured by answering the question, ‘what party does the candidate belong to?’ Data consists of three candidates representing centre-right political standpoint (Order and Justice, Liberals and Homeland Union of Christian Democrats), and one candidate representing left wing (The Lithuanian Social Democratic Party), also two candidates without ideology (A public electoral committee). Later this variable was recoded in groups: 0 = unknown source, 1 = left wing, 2 = centre right-left, 3 = committee. This variable was based on previous research conducted by Elmelund-Præstekær (2011).
Proximity to power: This variable assessed what power position candidates belonged to: challenger (52%) or incumbent (23%). This variable is based on findings of previous studies which found that challengers are more likely to attack than incumbents (Damore, 2002; Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010).
Overall negativity: This variable was assessed by coding two different aspects of
negativity: criticism and mudslinging. Firstly, criticism was measured by analyzing four different parts of the term: identification of criticism (59%), criticism in the past (41%), criticism in the future (24%), and frequency of criticism (for precise questions see the codebook in Appendix B). Questions were coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes), except frequency of criticism which was measured using a three point scale asking how critical the message was (1 = very critical, 2 = critical, 3 = a little bit critical) (M = 1.55, SD = .70). Later frequency of criticism was recoded so that the highest score would identify the highest frequency of criticism (M = 1.45, SD = 1.30).
Secondly, mudslinging (31%), which can be defined as “the act of saying insulting or unfair things about someone, especially to try to damage their reputation” (Dictionary of Cambridge, 2016), was identified if an ad / article included any insulting images, statements or adjectives towards other candidates (Cartee & Copeland, 1991). Questions were coded
dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes), except for frequency of mudslinging which was measured using a three point scale asking how offensive the message was (1 = very offensive, 2 = offensive, 3 = a little bit offensive) (M = 1.55, SD = .62). Later frequency of mudslinging was recoded so that the highest score would identify the highest frequency of mudslinging (M = .77, SD = 1.19). In addition, a question asking if there is any encouragement to dislike another candidate was included (28%).
These variables were based on previous research by Geer and Brooks (2007), Geer (2006), and Hansen and Pedersen (2008). In order to create a new variable that measures overall negativity, the above variables (criticism, mudslinging and dislike) were combined using a confirmatory factor analysis (eigenvalue = 4.35, explained variance = 62%, α = .84) M = 4.12, SD = 3.93).
Negative emotional appeals: This variable was measured by coding negative emotions and this is how Brader (2006), also Ridout and Franz (2011) operationalise emotional appeals. Firstly, a filter question was asked as to whether there were any emotional appeals in the
presented message (0 = no appeal, 1 = some appeal) (61% some appeal). Later, a question with a three point scale indicated if there is any attempt to elicit negative emotion and how strong the appeal is (0 = no attempt, 1 = some appeal, 2 = strong appeal). There were four negative emotions coded in this study: humor (reference to mockery) (M = .29, SD = .61), anger (M = .77, SD = .88), fear (M = .13, SD = .44) and sadness (M = .38, SD = .68). The results from this were computed into a new variable (0 = no emotional appeal, 6 = highest frequency of
emotional appeals in all emotional factors) called negative emotional appeals. Humor was excluded as it did not correlate with the other emotions (eigenvalue = 1.67, explained variance = 42%, α = .71, M = 1.88, SD = 1.89).
Results
In order to test hypothesis 1, which states that challengers are more likely to use negative ads than incumbents, a simple linear regression was used. This predicted negativity based on proximity to power. A significant regression equation was found, F (1, 180) = 55.99, p < .001. Therefore, the regression model can be used to predict the use of negativity but the strength of the prediction is moderate: 23 per cent of the variation in negativity usage can be predicted on
the basis of proximity to power (R2 = .23). Proximity to power significantly predicted negativity scores, b = .49, t (180) = 7.48, p < .001. Thus, hypothesis 1a can be accepted proving that
challengers use more negativity than incumbents within paid media (see table 3 in Appendix A). Hypothesis 1b, assumes that the challenger will be more likely to go negative than the incumbent during the debates. The regression model is significant, F (1, 109) = 75.34, p < .001. The test shows, that regression model can be used to predict usage of negativity within debates, but the strength of the prediction is moderate: 40 per cent of the variation in negativity usage can be predicted on the basis of proximity to power (R2 = .40). Proximity to power significantly predicted negativity scores, b = -.64, t (109) = -.8.68, p < .001. Thus hypothesis 1b can be accepted proving that challengers use more negativity than incumbent during the debates (see table 4 in Appendix A).
For the second hypothesis, linear regression was used to test if usage of negativity can be predicted by time, across all mediums. Again the regression model is significant, F (3, 178) = 23.19, p < .001. The test shows, that regression model can be used to predict usage of negativity within time periods, but the strength of the prediction is moderate: 28 per cent of the variation in negativity usage can be predicted on the basis of time (R2 = .28). Time significantly predicted negativity scores, b = .12, t (179) = 1.79, p = .074. This result shows that hypothesis 2 can be accepted (see table 5 in Appendix A).
In order to answer the thirdhypothesis, which states that candidates on the left wing are more likely to engage in negative campaigning than parties in the centre, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. Only paid ads were chosen for this study as all candidates are represented in them. Firstly the Levene’s test of homogeneity was assessed, yet this was not satisfied, F(3, 178) = 11.01, p < .001. Therefore, a robust Welch ANOVA was conducted which provided a significant difference between the three groups, F(3, 62) = 9.46, p < .001. Following this, the Scheffe post-hoc
test was run and the results showed that there was a significant difference between left wing and centre right-left, p = .026, but not between any other groups. This means that candidates from the traditional ideology point, i.e., left wing, use more negativity than the rest of the candidates. Thus, the hypothesis can be accepted concluding that left wing candidates use more negativity than centre right-left positioning candidates.
The fourth hypothesis, which states that new candidates are more likely to engage in negative campaigning than previously known candidates, is not significant as the previous ANOVA found no significant differences between the Committee group (no ideologically identified group) which can also be considered new candidates compared to the other groups, meaning previously known candidates.
The fifth hypothesis states that there is a difference in negative emotional appeal usage between media channels. Therefore, a one-way ANOVA was conducted in order to test the hypothesis. Before the ANOVA can be run, the Levene’s homogeneity of variance test was conducted and not satisfied. Therefore, a robust Welch ANOVA was conducted which provided a significant difference between the three groups, F(2, 245) = 28.64, p < .001. Following this, the Scheffe post-hoc test was run and the results showed that there was a significant difference between the free media compared with both, paid ads (p < .001) and debates (p < .001). Therefore, the hypothesis can be accepted.
Hypothesis 6a states, that the level of negativity is higher in debates than in other media channels, therefore a one-way ANOVA was conducted. Similarly to before, the Levene’s test was not satisfied. The results from the Welch ANOVA showed a significant difference between the three groups, F(2, 247) = 44.25, p < .001. Following this, the Scheffe post-hoc test was run and the results showed that there was a significant difference between the free media compared with both, paid ads (p < .001) and debates (p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 6a is accepted.
Hypothesis 6b, which looks at whether there is any difference between challengers’ and incumbent’s usage of emotional appeals in the last period of campaigning (debates), an
independent sample T-test was conducted. The Levene’s test was satisfied, p = .588. The t-test yielded a significant effect of proximity to power on usage of negative emotional appeals, t (108) = 4.83, p <.001, 95% CI [1.88, .788]. The challenger had a higher intent to use negative
emotional appeals during debates (M = 3.13, SD = 1.51), than the incumbent (M = 1.79, SD = 1.42). Therefore, hypothesis 6b can be accepted.
The last hypothesis, states that negativity is more likely to be found in paid media (channels with high political control) than in free media (low political control). Because the results of the one-way ANOVA from hypothesis 6a showed a significant difference between paid media and free media but also between two free media channels, an Independent samples T-test was conducted (debates were recoded to the free media). The Levene’s test was not satisfied, p <.001. Therefore, the t-test results were taken from the equal variances not assumed row. The T-test gave a significant effect of media channel on negativity, t (315) = 2.4, p = .017, 95% CI [1.76, 1.77]. Thus, hypothesis 7 is supported.
Discussion
This study, on a basis of a content analysis, has examined negative campaigning and the use of negative emotional appeals in political campaigns within different media channels. It has found important insights through looking at the unique case of the 2015 Lithuanian municipal mayoral election. The most salient results revealed three important things. Firstly, challengers tended to attack and use more negative emotional appeals than incumbents, secondly, the last period of campaigning as well as debates contained the most negativity and thirdly, candidates
with a traditional ideology were the most likely to attack. These results greatly contribute to the findings of American and Western European studies, suggesting that negativity within a political campaign is not only an American phenomenon, but a more intuitive response to the high
competition, regardless to where the campaign was held.
To be more precise, the results show that there is empirical evidence of power position influence on usage of negativity. The first hypothesis, with a focus on paid ads, was supported as the results revealed that challengers are more likely to engage in negative campaigning than incumbents. The same was revealed with a focus on debates. This relates to the previously discussed theory that in a competitive political environment, the incumbent, as higher power holder, already has a well established image, whereas challengers have less power, are usually under-funded, meaning they find it harder to implement both positive and negative campaigns. Therefore, as negative information has a greater effect on voter’s decisions, challengers tend to be negative from the beginning of the campaign (Emelund, 2010; Damore, 2002). This
Lithuanian case is not an exception and proves political power status to be the first step towards negative campaigning.
In relation to the previous results, time also plays an important role during municipal level campaigns. The second hypothesis was supported, proving that the closer Election Day is, the more negative candidates become (Damore, 2002; Franz & Ridout, 2007). However, the results supporting this hypothesis were weak. This could be explained by the fact that there was a high level of negativity during the debates, which fell in the last period of campaigning. Thus, although negativity rose during the last period, there was fluctuation of negativity from the very beginning of the campaign till the end. This implies that in Lithuanian municipal elections
candidates do not pay a lot of attention to the time periods, and use negativity more spontaneously than rationally.
Turning to the ideological position of candidates and its influence on negativity, the results from this study echo previous findings from Scandinavia (Emelund, 2010) as left-wing Lithuanian candidates were more negative than those in the centre-right. This can be explained by the fact that the left wing party is represented by the Lithuanian Social Democrats and this was one of the first established parties since the independence of Lithuania. Accordingly, this implies that in the high competition with rising new candidates, politicians with a traditional ideological standpoint might use more negativity in order to stress and strengthen their own existing position, while continuously criticising opposition.
However, despite the fact that ideology matters, new candidates were no more negative than previously known candidates. Results revealed that new candidates in the Lithuanian
municipal context, firstly tried to positively establish themselves. However, needless to point out, that even though hypothesis 4 was not supported, evidence showed that new candidates used negative characteristics. It could be assumed that the results were not significant due to the relatively small sample of new candidates. Consequently, further investigation is required. Shifting now to results regarding negative emotional appeals, this study shows that negative emotional appeals can be found under the umbrella context of negativity as often they are used together. Results revealed that emotional appeals were mostly found in the debates compared to other media channels. As it was mentioned before, the debates were the last chance to make an impression in the eyes of voters; therefore they contained all negative strategy characteristics: criticism, mudslinging and negative emotional appeals. In addition, the same applies to the power position: negative appeals were mostly used by the challenger rather than
the incumbent. Hence, the results highly support the theory which states that the challenger tries to use every possible way to weaken the power of the incumbent and that negative emotional appeals are the fastest way to do it with greater effect, as voters often base their decisions on emotional responses (Brader, 2006).
Finally, it was crucial to see how negativity within media channels differs. Thus the seventh hypothesis compares negativity within media channels with high political control (paid ads) with those with low political control (newspaper and debates). However, the last hypothesis was supported as paid media was proved to be the most negative medium containing the majority of attacks. It proves that news media is trying to stay balanced in news coverage and even though debates are the harshest in its rhetoric, more negativity was communicated though controlled media.
Taking the above results into consideration, there are some limitations to this study. For one, these findings represent only a small scale of campaigning and its characteristics as it includes only one city with candidates competing here. Also, the sample is relatively small as paid media sometimes contained less than 30 ad examples from one single politician. Also there was only one newspaper analyzed from the city of Klaipeda. Therefore, for the future research sampling could be expanded including the whole spectrum of candidates competing in the same elections and comparing it to other municipalities.
In conclusion, this study revealed that political power position, time, ideological position, and media channel are important predictors of negative campaigning and usage of negative emotional appeals in Eastern European municipal level mayoral election. Accordingly, the added value of this paper could be determined through several factors. Firstly, while negative
available on other countries. As far as it could be established, this is the first paper on negativity within a political campaign looking at Lithuania, as country from Eastern Europe. Secondly, there is little research conducted on municipal level campaigning, and this study gives a new insight on the smaller power holders – mayors. Therefore, this paper attempts to bridge a gap between the countries within Europe and even USA. This study answers questions about rising democracies that have puzzled political scientists and political consultants as the study reveals new patterns and dynamics of political campaigning under changing political circumstances.
References
Aalberg, T., & Jenssen, A. T. (2007). Do television debates in multiparty systems affect viewers? A quasi experimental study with first time voters. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(1), 115-135.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going Negative: How Attack Ads Shrinks and Polarize the Electorate.
Ansolabehere, S. D., Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: The case of negative advertising and turnout. American Political Science Review, 93(04), 901-909.
Aslam, M. M. (2006). Are you selling the right colour? A cross cultural review of colour as a marketing cue. Journal of marketing communications, 12(1), 15-30
Balcytiene, A., & Magnus, V. (2009, May). Small can also be multicultural: Rediscovering Baltic media characteristics in a mixed model. In International Communication Association (ICA)“Keywords in Communication” Conference, Chicago, USA. Basil, M., Schooler, C., & Reeves, B. (1991). Positive and negative political advertising:
Effectiveness of ads and perceptions of candidates.
Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign'96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates.
Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (2000). Acclaiming, attacking, and defending: A functional analysis of US nominating convention keynote speeches. Political Communication, 17(1), 61-84.
Benoit, W. L., & Sheafer, T. (2006). Functional theory and political discourse: Televised debates in Israel and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 281-297.
Boiney, J., & Paletz, D. L. (1991). In search of the model model: Political science versus political advertising perspectives on voter decision making.Television and political advertising, 1, 3-25.
Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388-405. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads
work. University of Chicago Press.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Affective reactions to acoustic stimuli.Psychophysiology, 37(02), 204-215.
Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news and newspapers. American Journal of
Political Science, 172-193.
Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1-16.
Buell, E. H., & Sigelman, L. (2008). Attack politics: Negativity in presidential campaigns since 1960. Univ Pr of Kansas.
Damore, D. F. (2002). Candidate strategy and the decision to go negative.Political Research Quarterly, 55(3), 669-685.
Djupe, P. A., & Peterson, D. A. (2002). The impact of negative campaigning: Evidence from the 1998 senatorial primaries. Political Research Quarterly,55(4), 845-860.
Duvold, K., & Jurkynas, M. (2007). Europeanization without Party Involvement: The Case of Lithuania (pp. 107-127). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Elmelund-Præstekær, C., & Wien, C. (2008). What's the fuss about? The interplay of media hypes and politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 247-266.
Elmelund-Præstekær, C. (2010). Beyond American negativity: Toward a general understanding of the determinants of negative campaigning. European Political Science Review, 2(01), 137-156.
Elmelund-Præstekær, C. (2011). Issue ownership as a determinant of negative campaigning. International Political Science Review, 32(2), 209-221.
Fisher, J., van Heerde-Hudson, J., & Tucker, A. (2011). Why Both Theory and Empirics Suggest There is More than One Form of Trust: A Response to Hooghe. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13(2), 276-281.
Franz, M. M., & Ridout, T. N. (2007). Does political advertising persuade?.Political Behavior, 29(4), 465-491.
Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2004). Do negative messages work? The impact of negativity on citizens’ evaluations of candidates. American Politics Research, 32(5), 570-605.
Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2008). The dimensions of negative messages.American Politics Research.
Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2012). The impact of negative campaigning on citizens’ actions and attitudes. The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication, 173.
Garramone, G. M. (1984). Voter responses to negative political ads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 250-259.
Geer, J., & Lau, R. R. (2006). Filling in the blanks: A new method for estimating campaign effects. British Journal of Political Science, 36(02), 269-290.
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
Hamilton, D. L., & Zanna, M. P. (1974). Context effects in impression formation: Changes in connotative meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(5), 649. Hansen, K. M., & Pedersen, R. T. (2008). Negative campaigning in a multiparty
system. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(4), 408-427.
Harrington Jr, J. E., & Hess, G. D. (1996). A spatial theory of positive and negative campaigning. Games and Economic behavior, 17(2), 209-229.
Haynes, A. A., & Rhine, S. L. (1998). Attack politics in presidential nomination campaigns: An examination of the frequency and determinants of intermediated negative messages against opponents. Political Research Quarterly, 51(3), 691-721.
Holbrook, M. B., & Gardner, M. P. (1993). An approach to investigating the emotional
determinants of consumption durations: why do people consume what they consume for as long as they consume it?. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(2), 123-142.
Holtz-Bacha, C., & Kaid, L. L. (2006). Political advertising in international comparison. The SAGE handbook of political advertising, 3-14.
Holtz-Bacha, C. (2001). Negative Campaigning: in Deutschland negativ aufgenommen. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 669-677.
Huddy, L., & Gunnthorsdottir, A. H. (2000). The persuasive effects of emotive visual imagery: Superficial manipulation or the product of passionate reason?.Political
Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. (2007). Media politics: A citizen's guide. New York: WW Norton. Jamieson, K. H., Waldman, P., & Sherr, S. (2000). Eliminate the negative? Categories of
analysis for political advertisements. Crowded airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections, 44-64.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. (1991). Candidate-sponsored negative political advertising effects reconsidered.
Kahn, K. F., & Geer, J. G. (1994). Creating impressions: An experimental investigation of political advertising on television. Political Behavior, 16(1), 93-116.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93(04), 877-889.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (2000). How negative campaigning enhances knowledge of Senate elections. Crowded airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections, 65-95.
Kaid, L. L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2006). The Sage handbook of political advertising. Sage Publications.
Kern, M. (1989). 30-second politics: Political advertising in the eighties. Praeger Publishers. Krebs, T. B., & Holian, D. B. (2007). Competitive Positioning, Deracialization, and Attack
Speech A Study of Negative Campaigning in the 2001 Los Angeles Mayoral Election. American Politics Research, 35(1), 123-149.
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 403-407). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of US Senate elections. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4(4), 353-377.
Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2001). Effects of negative campaigning on turnout in US Senate elections, 1988–1998. The Journal of Politics, 63(03), 804-819.
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In Lupia, A., M. Mc Cubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 183-213).
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1991). Emotion and memory responses for negative political advertising: A study of television commercials used in the 1988 presidential
election. Television and political advertising, 1, 197-220.
Niven, D. (2006). A field experiment on the effects of negative campaign mail on voter turnout in a municipal election. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 203-210
Norrander, B. (1986). Correlates of vote choice in the 1980 presidential primaries. The Journal of Politics, 48(01), 156-166.
Perloff, R. M., & Kinsey, D. (1992). Political advertising as seen by consultants and journalists. Journal of Advertising Research.
Plasser, F., & Plasser, G. (2002). Global political campaigning: A worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Ridout, T. N., & Franz, M. M. (2011). The persuasive power of campaign advertising. Temple University Press.
Sanders, D., & Norris, P. (2005). The impact of political advertising in the 2001 UK general election. Political Research Quarterly, 58(4), 525-536.
Skaperdas, S., & Grofman, B. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89(01), 49-61.
Simamora, N. R. H., & Kep, M. (2009). Buku ajar pendidikan dalam keperawatan. EGC.
Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of advertising, 10(2), 9-48.
Strömbäck, J., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2006). Political and Media Systems Matter A Comparison of Election News Coverage in Sweden and the United States.The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(4), 131-147.
Surlin, S. H., & Gordon, T. F. (1977). How values affect attitudes toward direct reference political advertising. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,54(1), 89-98.
Theilmann, J., & Wilhite, A. (1998). Campaign tactics and the decision to attack. The Journal of Politics, 60(04), 1050-1062.
Trent, J. S., & Friedenberg, R. V. (2000). Debates in political campaigns.Political campaign communication. Principles and practices,, 249-91.
Walter, A. S., & Vliegenthart, R. (2010). Negative campaigning across different communication channels: different ball games?. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(4), 441-461.
Walter, A. S. (2012). Negative campaigning in Western Europe: beyond the vote-seeking perspective.
Walter, A. S., Van der Brug, W., & van Praag, P. (2014). When the Stakes Are High Party Competition and Negative Campaigning. Comparative Political Studies, 47(4), 550-573.
Mudslinging. (n.d.). In Dioctionary of Cambridge online. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mudslinging General Electoral Committee of Lithuania. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.vrk.lt/2015-savivaldybiu-tarybu
Footnote
The theory of affective intelligence claims that people have two basic decision strategies available, and that they easily move from one to the other and back again. It argues that voter competence is dynamically responsive to the strategic character of the political geography (Marcus, at al., 2000).
Appendix A
Tables referred to in the methods and results section Table 1
Krippendorff’s alpha for each of the variable
Variables Krippendorff’s alpha
Criticism 0.73
Mudslinging 0.78
Frequency of criticism 0.84
Frequency of offensive messages 0.87
Criticism in the past 0.73
Criticism in the future 0.73
Dislike 0.72 Humor 0.68 Fear 0.90 Anger 0.91 Sadness 0.89 Time 0.72 Proximity to power 0.91 Channels 0.92 Table 2
Composition of the sample
Candidates Paid ads Debate’s bites Newspaper articles
V. Grubliauskas 38 54 - A. Bilotaitė 17 58 - A. Razbadauskas 39 - - L. Petraitienė 30 - - R. Cibauskas 21 - - N. Puteikienė 30 - - Unknown source 19 - - Total 194 112 100
Note. N = 406
*The frequency of how many times candidates were mentioned in the newspaper is not specified in the sample
Table 3
Regression model to predict frequency of negativity usage within paid ads
B b* t Sig.
Constant .057 .084 .933
Proximity to power 5.68 .49 7.48 .000
Table 4
Regression model to predict frequency of negativity usage within debates
B b* t Sig.
Constant 7.37 20.72 .000
Proximity to power -4.27 -.649 -8.68 .000
Table 5
Regression model to predict frequency of negativity usage within time
b b* T Sig.
Constant -.200 -.136 .892
Proximity to power 5.85 .501 7.68 .000
Time .388 .120 1.79 .074
Appendix B Codebook 1. Item’s number
2. When the ad was released? Day / Month / Year
3. To what media channel ad / article belongs to? (Iyengar & McGrady, 2007) 1 Free media (news coverage)
2 Major debates
3 Paid media (candidate’s ads)
BLOCK I: PAID MEDIA
4. Paid media types: To what type of paid media ad / article belongs to? 1 Flyer
2 Article in candidate’s established newspaper 3 Paid article in the local or national newspaper 4 Press release
5 Public letters
6 Personal articles on the web (from candidates) 7 Other
5. Ideology: To whom message presented in the ad / article belongs to? 1 Agne Bilotaitė (Homeland Union of Christian Democrats) 2 Vytautas Grubliauskas (Liberals)
3 Rimantas Cibauskas (A public electoral committee)
4 Lilija Petraitienė (The Lithuanian Social Democratic Party) 5 Nika Puteikienė (A public electoral committee)
6 Arturas Razbadauskas (Order and Justice) 7 Unknown source (anonymous)
6. Proximity to power: To what power position candidate, that owns the message presented in the ad / article belongs? (Elmelund-Præstekær, 2010).
0 = Incumbent 1 = Challenger
Negativity I: ATTACK - CRITICISM
7. Does the presented message reflects criticism / reproaches against other candidate? (i.e., message focused, such as "Education in our communities is suffering today because my opponent has failed to support... " (Geer and Brooks, 2007)
[presence of criticism] 0 = No
1 = Yes
8. Does the presented message suggest that the city / citizens has suffered in the past from another’s political reign either generally or specifically?
0 = No 1 = Yes
9. Does the presented message suggest that city / citizens will suffer in the future from another’s political reign generally or specifically?
[disadvantage evaluation – fear] 0 = No
1 = Yes
10. How critical / reproaching the message is towards the opposite candidate? [extended evaluation of conflict – attack]
1 = very critical 2 = critical
3 = a little bit critical
Negativity II: MUDSLINGING
11. Does the presented message encourage citizens to dislike certain candidates and vote against the candidates? (Geer, 2006)
[disadvantage evaluation] 0 = No
1 = Yes
12. Is the presented message offensive? (i.e. ad / article includes any insulting images / statements / adjectives towards other candidate) (Copeland, 1991)
[attempt to offend] 0 = No
1 = Yes
13. How offensive is the presented message? [extended evaluation of offence]
1 = very offensive 2 = offensive
EMOTIONAL APPEALS
14. Is there any emotional appeal to viewer (your) emotions? (Brader, 2006) 0 = no appeal to viewer emotions
1 = appeal to viewer emotions
15. Amusement / humor appeal: Was the candidate of this ad attempting to elicit amusement / humor? (Brader, 2006)
0 = no attempt to elicit amusement (appeal to humor) 1 = some appeal to amusement / humor
2 = strong appeal to amusement / humor
16. Anger appeal: Was the candidate of this ad attempting to elicit anger? 0 = no attempt to elicit anger / contempt / disgust
1 = some appeal to anger / contempt / disgust 2 = strong appeal to anger / contempt / disgust
17. Fear appeal: Was the candidate of this ad attempting to elicit fear? 0 = no attempt to elicit fear / anxiety
1 = some appeal to fear / anxiety 2 = strong appeal to fear / anxiety
18. Sadness appeal: Was the candidate of this ad attempting to elicit sadness? 0 = no attempt to elicit sadness / disappointment / regret
1 = some appeal to sadness / disappointment / regret 2 = strong appeal to sadness / disappointment / regret
BLOCK II: NEWSPAPERS’ COVERAGE
(Note: article is coded only if candidate was mentioned in it) Negativity I: ATTACK - CRITICISM
19. Does the message presented in the article reflects criticism / reproaches against candidates / parties / individuals / groups / institutions?
[presence of criticism] 0 = No
1 = Yes
20. Does the presented message suggest that the city / citizens has suffered in the past from someone’s political reign either generally or specifically?
[disadvantage evaluation - suffer] 0 = No
21. Does the presented message suggest that city / citizens will suffer in the future from someone’s political reign generally or specifically?
[disadvantage evaluation – fear] 0 = No
1 = Yes
22. How critical / reproaching the article is towards the candidate / individual / group / institution?
[extended evaluation of conflict – attack] 1 = very critical
2 = critical
3 = a little bit critical
Negativity II: MUDSLINGING
23. Is the message presented in the article offensive towards any candidate? (i.e. ad / article includes any insulting images / statements towards other candidate) (book of Copeland, 1991) [attempt to offend]
0 = No 1 = Yes
24. How offensive is the message presented in the ad / article? [extended evaluation of offend]
1 = very offensive 2 = offensive
3 = a little bit offensive
EMOTIONAL APPEALS
25. Is there any emotional appeal to viewer emotions? (Brader, 2006) 0 = no appeal to viewer emotions
1 = appeal to viewer emotions
26. Amusement / humor appeal: Were journalists attempting to elicit amusement / humor? (Brader, 2006)
0 = no attempt to elicit amusement (appeal to humor) 1 = some appeal to amusement / humor
2 = strong appeal to amusement / humor
27. Anger appeal: Were journalists attempting to elicit anger? 0 = no attempt to elicit anger / contempt / disgust
1 = some appeal to anger / contempt / disgust 2 = strong appeal to anger / contempt / disgust
