Master Thesis
Negative Campaigning and Turnout Intention: the Role of Tolerance of Negativity
Graduate School of Communication
Master Program Communication Science
Submission: 24-6-2020 Word count: 7456 Elsemieke Dirks 10775099 elsemiekedirks@gmail.com Supervisor:
Abstract
Research on the influence of exposure to negative campaigns on turnout intention is inconclusive: some studies indicate negativity mobilizes, while others find demobilizing results. This thesis researches if this variance in turnout intention is explained by personality traits, specifically Tolerance of Negativity. This study compares different dimensions in negative campaigning (civility of the attack and focus of the attack). Using an online survey-embedded experiment conducted amongst Dutch citizens with the right to vote (N = 251), findings show that Tolerance of Negativity does not influence the relationship between exposure to a negative campaign and turnout intention. While there is no moderated effect of Tolerance of Negativity, an uncivil attack has a negative influence on turnout intention when compared to a civil attack. The same was not found when comparing a personal attack to a policy attack. These findings suggest that negative campaigns influence turnout intention, but Tolerance of Negativity does not play a role in this relationship.
Keywords: negative campaign, turnout intention, personality, Tolerance of Negativity,
Introduction
Contemporary political campaigns frequently turn negative (Weinschenk &
Panagopoulos, 2014). Negativity in campaigning refers to the act of attacking the political opponent instead of promoting a programme or value of oneself (Nai & Walter, 2015). While the name might suggest otherwise, a negative campaign can be any kind of political statement or comment and doesn’t necessarily refer to an entire campaign (Nai & Walter, 2015).
Negative campaigning can have notable effects. As not everyone reacts to negativity in the same manner, these are difficult to predict. A recent example of negative campaigning in the Netherlands are the critiques of the Prime Minister’s coronavirus policy from Members of Parliament. Most of the attacks against the Prime Minister came from Members of Parliament from the Forum voor Democratie (FVD) and the Partij Voor de Vrijheid (PVV) (Rademaker, 2020). During the same period a public opinion poll showed voters shifting from intending to vote for the FVD or the PVV to the VVD, the Prime Minister’s party (Kester, 2020). In the polls, citizens expressed that the personal tone of the attacks aimed towards the Prime Minister were “not very chic” (Rademaker, 2020). Taking into account the limitations of a
single public opinion poll, this serves as an interesting example that suggests a relationship between negative campaigning and an individual’s political behaviour.
As the critique of the Dutch Prime minister illustrates, negativity influences political behaviour. It has been shown that negativity can impact voter turnout (Lau et al., 2007). Studies researching the effect of negative campaigning on turnout are inconclusive: some find mobilizing effects, while others find demobilizing results (Lau et al., 2007). How can these contradictory findings be explained? One explanation for the contradicting outcomes of studies could lie in an individual’s personality (Maier & Faas, 2015). Fairly recently, studies have shown the importance of an individual’s personality on the political process (Fridkin &
Kenney, 2011; Mondak, 2010; Weinschenk & Panagopoulos, 2014). Personality can play a role in how voters react to negative campaigns, which could translate to political behaviour (Hopmann et al., 2018).
In this regard, one of the character traits that could influence individual behaviour is Tolerance of Negativity (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011). Individuals have a certain level of this trait, which plays a role in how they perceive and act on negative messages. For some “anything goes”, while for others certain attacks might “cross the line” (Fridkin & Kenney,
2011, p. 309). If one’s level of Tolerance of Negativity influences perceptions and behaviour, it could also play a role in political behaviour. The level of Tolerance of Negativity could explain why exposure to a negative campaign increases turnout intention for certain citizens, while decreasing it for others. This leads to the following research question:
RQ: To what extent does Tolerance of Negativity influence the relationship between negativity in a campaign and turnout?
This research question is of academic and societal relevance. It is of academic relevance because it adds to the existing literature about the influence of individual differences on receptivity to negative campaign messages. Until now, only a handful of studies researched individual differences in receptivity to negative campaign messages (Weinschenk & Panagopoulos, 2014). Specifically, the effect of personality moderating the influence of political attacks is little researched (Maier & Faas, 2015). Because of this, we know little about the personal characteristics that could influence citizens’ turnout intention.
A second aspect that makes this research question of academic relevance is that in the field of personality traits, the effect of Tolerance of Negativity on personal decision-making has not been thoroughly researched yet. Two studies researched the concept of Tolerance of Negativity: the first in a political context (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011), the second from a
marketing communication perspective (Muehling et al., 2018). Combining the approaches from these studies, this thesis will further develop the concept of Tolerance of Negativity. The research at hand will be the first to study the influence of Tolerance of Negativity on turnout intention.
Learning more about what influences turnout intention is of societal relevance. In the first place, voting is at the core of democracies, therefore it is important to know citizens’ motives behind voting. Given the frequency of attacks in political campaigns, gaining more knowledge on their influence on political behaviour could be useful to stimulate voting and by doing so strengthen the democratic system (Nai & Walter, 2015).
The knowledge gained through research on Tolerance of Negativity and its influence on turnout intention can also be useful for political parties. Campaigns could be adapted to consider citizens’ Tolerance of Negativity and help political stakeholders to get their message
across to the public.
Theory and expectations
Negative campaigning
The work of Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) marked the beginning of negative campaigning as a new field of research (Nai & Walter, 2015). What makes a campaign negative is not a determinate characteristic. The consensus is that negative campaigning is attacking the political opponent instead of promoting one’s own programme (Nai & Walter, 2015). Negative campaigns can be focused on different properties of a politician, for example a politician’s values, character or policies (e.g. Benoit 1999; Lau & Pomper 2004).
Negative campaigning can be defined based on two approaches: directional and evaluative. The directional approach defines negative campaigning as an attack on the opponent, with emphasis on the directional part of the statement. By focussing the definition
on parts of the statement that are empirically verifiable, one can avoid characteristics that are debateable, for example if a statement is ‘bad’ or ‘unfair’ (Walter & Vliegenthart, 2010).
The evaluative definition uses specific characteristics of a campaign such as ‘bad’ or ‘unfair’ and define negative campaigning by the use of these characteristics (Nai & Walter,
2015). A problematic aspect of the evaluative definition is that it creates measurement issues when used in research, because it is debateable when something can be considered as ‘bad’ or ‘good’ (Walter & Vliegenthart, 2010). The directional definition of negative campaigning is
preferred over the evaluative definition by most academic researches. Using the directional definition, most of the grey area of discussion to determine if a campaign is negative or not is avoided (Nai & Walter, 2015; Geer, 2006). In line with earlier academic research, this thesis will use the directional definition of negative campaigning
After determining that a campaign is negative, particular negative campaigns can be further differentiated. Some negative campaigns can for example be ‘ruder’ than others. The main question is not about negativity per se, but if specific types of negativity make a
difference (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011). Research often takes these differences into account, but not as part of the defining properties of a negative campaign.
Negative campaigning and turnout intention
Campaigning in politics is used to reach a goal: to win votes (Nai & Walter, 2015). Negativity is utilized because it attracts attention (Fiske, 1980) and is designed to diminish the voters’ positive feelings towards the opponent (Lau et al., 2007). The idea is that when the
evaluation of the opponent is lowered, voters will favour the attacker, which will ultimately translate to voting behaviour (Lau et al., 2007).
Research on the general topic of negative campaigning ranges from the effect it has on the feelings towards the sponsor of a campaign (Hitchon & Chang, 1995; Fridkin & Kenney,
2011) to one’s trust in the government (Brooks & Geer, 2007; Geer, 2006; Lau & Pomper, 2004). This research focuses on the effect negative campaigning can have on electoral turnout intention.
Since the research by Ansolabehere et al. (1999; 1995, 1994), findings on the effect of negative campaigning on turnout have been mixed. Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) found that negative campaigning depresses turnout, because it alienates voters from the politicians and the political process. Research that followed did not always find results that matched with earlier findings of Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995): some studies show that negativity increases turnout (Goldstein & Freedman, 2002; Wattenberg & Brians, 1999) while others find that negative campaigns have no effect on turnout (Finkel & Geer, 1998; Krasno & Green, 2008).
A meta-analysis conducted by Lau et al. (2007) gives an overview of studies
researching the effects of negative campaigning among which turnout and turnout intention. Combining the results of 57 studies on turnout, they do not find a significant effect of
negative campaigns on turnout intention while the outcomes of individual studies differ (Lau et al., 2007). They do not provide a possible explanation for the contradicting results in the individual studies. Above that, Lau et al. (2007) did do not take personality of the voter into account when testing for possible moderators that distinguish the compared studies from each other. This goes against earlier findings by Brooks (2006), who suggested individual
differences as a factor explain why in terms of overall effects one group is mobilized by negativity while another group is demobilized. From the overview of studies researching the effect of negative campaigns on turnout intention, one can conclude that there is no consensus yet on what influence negativity has on turnout.
Dimensions in negativity in campaigns
Not every negative message is the same and there are different features negative campaigns can be differentiated on. Examples of these differences in negativity are veracity, function and topic (Benoit in Nai & Walter, 2015), the civility of a message (Brooks & Geer 2007; Geer, 2006; Hopmann et al., 2018; Fridkin & Kenney, 2011), if the attack is focused on an issue or a personal trait of the politician (Geer, 2006; Schulman & Rivera, 2009) or the different positions of the sender or target of the attack (e.g. Dolezal et al. in Nai & Walter, 2015). Differentiating between types of negativity may help to explain the variance in results that are found when researching the effects of negative campaigning (Hopmann et al., 2018). Voters respond to variation of the tone in messages, implying that different dimensions in negativity result in different turnout rates (Kahn & Kenney, 1999).
This thesis will focus on the difference between the effects of civility in negative campaign messages on turnout intention and differentiates between a policy focused attack and a personal attack.
Civil versus uncivil messages in negative campaigning
Negative messages differ when it comes to their civility (Geer, 2006). While the definition of negative campaigning itself says something about if the attack is aimed at the opposition or not, the civility of a message describes how the comment is made (Hopmann et al., 2018). Uncivil political communication according to Brooks & Geer (2007, p. 1) is when attacks “go beyond facts and differences, and move towards name-calling, contempt, and derision of the opposition”. Rinke et al. (2013, p. 483) define incivility “as unusually impolite
forms of verbal or physical social behaviour”. Furthermore, Fridkin and Kenney (2011, p. 311) describe an uncivil message as “overly strident, rude, discourteous”. These definitions of civility are different but share the view that uncivil messages have a rude or impolite tone.
Uncivil statements could be an issue for society as it “undermines our electoral process” (Brooks & Geer, 2007, p. 7). Turnout was lower among U.S. adults when they were exposed to “mudslinging”, something regarded as uncivil (Kahn & Kenney, 1999, p. 877).
Citizens are disgusted by uncivil statements, and therefore choose to stay home on election day (Kahn & Kenney, 1999). In the same line of thinking Mutz and Reeves (2005) found that an uncivil statement in a political talk show diminishes a viewer’s political trust. Moreover, in an experiment exposing participants to political campaigns varying in civility Brooks and Geer (2007) found that negative campaigning itself is not often the problem, but instead uncivil messages are. Furthermore, Fridkin and Kenney (2011) hypothesised that messages that are civil or uncivil will have varying effects on one’s evaluation of candidates. Certain
norms are established in society that play a role in the interaction with other individuals. Extending this logic to politics, Fridkin and Kenney (2011) expect that citizens have a certain expectation of civility from politicians. If this expectation is violated, it would depress an individual’s opinion of the candidate (Fridkin and Kenney, 2011). Clearly, the civility of a message influences one’s reaction to the message.
Earlier mentioned studies found that exposure to an uncivil message leads to less trust in politics and lower evaluation of the sponsor of a campaign. It seems that citizens perceive uncivil campaigns as problematic, resulting in negative sentiments. These negative sentiments could translate to turnout intention. Hence the following hypothesis: (H1) An uncivil negative
campaign has a negative effect on turnout intention compared to a civil negative campaign.
Policy versus personal focused messages in negative campaigning
Fridkin and Kenney (2011) found that next to civility, the relevance of a political message is an important factor to consider when looking at the possible effects of negative campaigning. Campaigns are not only seen as objectional when they are uncivil, but also
when they are perceived as irrelevant (Kahn & Kenney, 1999). The relevance of the message can be determined by evaluating if the claim made in the message appears to bear directly on the political process or not. For example, relevant messages are attacks focused on a political standpoint, while irrelevant ones focus on a politicians’ personal life (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011). Earlier research already made the distinction between a policy focused attack and a personal attack (Brooks & Geer, 2007; Carraro & Castelli, 2010; Hopmann et al., 2018; Lau & Pomper, 2001, 2004; Mutz & Reeves, 2005, Schulman & Rivera, 2009). There is an overlap between relevance of the attack and focus of the attack: focus of the attack makes a clearer, objective division between attacks. This research uses the concept ‘focus’ instead of relevance.
Research shows that the public in general is indifferent when candidates attack on policy issues, but disapproves when candidates are attacked personally (Brooks & Geer, 2007). As Fridkin & Kenney (2011) suggest, this might be because personal attacks are considered as less relevant by the public than attacks on policy. Carraro and Castelli (2010) found evidence that people evaluate a message differently depending on the focus of the message: personal attacks lead to lower evaluations of the sponsor of the campaign. Overall, it appears that personal attacks are perceived as less relevant, disturbing and lead to lower evaluations of the sender of the attack. As with the first hypothesis, these negative feelings are expected to translate to turnout intention. Taking the mentioned studies and its findings into account leads to the following hypothesis: (H2) A negative campaign with a personal attack
has a negative effect on turnout intention compared to a policy focused attack.
Brooks and Geer (2007) and Hopmann et al. (2018) combined the two dimensions civility of the message and focus of the message, differentiating four types of negative campaigns. Following Brooks and Geer (2007) and Hopmann et al. (2018), this paper also makes a division between two dimensions, resulting in four conditions (see Figure 1)
Figure 1 Four types of negative campaigns
Personal Policy
Civil Civil personal Civil policy
Uncivil Uncivil personal Uncivil policy
Negative campaigning in the Netherlands
Research on negative campaigning has mostly taken place in in the United States and less in other Western countries (Walter & Van der Brug, 2013). This study researches
negative campaigning in the Dutch political context in 2020. Different political systems result in different dynamics and could therefore play a role in the effects of negative campaigning (Walter & Van der Brug, 2013).
The Netherlands is a representative democracy with a multi-party system. This can influence negative campaigning. Compared to a two-party system, negative campaigning appears less in multiparty political systems like the Netherlands (Walter, 2014).
In a context with multiple parties involved, negative campaigning can be a risk as it can interfere with the relationships between parties (Walter, 2009). In a multi-party political system, parties often will need to form a coalition to be able to govern. Because of the likelihood of having to work together with other parties, attacking the opponent in a negative campaign might be detrimental. Another issue that influences the use of negative campaigning in the Netherlands is the political culture. The Dutch political culture is built upon mutual respect and collaborations (Walter, 2009). Because of the multi-party system, negative campaigning is used less frequently in the Netherlands than the United States (Walter, 2009). As a result of the relatively infrequent use, citizens in the Netherlands are less used to
Tolerance of Negativity
A recent area that has been getting attention in the field of negative campaigning is the influence personal characteristics have on reactions to a negative campaign. Some campaigns might mobilize some individuals, while demobilizing others (Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1995). This difference in turnout intention might be explained by differences in personality. To illustrate, some people are more motivated to vote because of certain personal
characteristics (Kahn & Kenney, 1999).
A study by Mondak in 2010 was the first to thoroughly investigate the significance of personality for political behaviour, and hypothesized that one’s personality holds
consequences for political attitudes and actions. Mondak defines personality as a multifaceted and enduring internal, psychological, structure that influences behaviour (Mondak, 2010). The personality traits he builds his research upon are the Big Five personality traits as described by John and Srivastava (1999): extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience. Mondak (2010) found that the Big Five personality traits have fundamentally different influences on how people engage in politics. The same was found about specifically negativity influencing the relationship between several Big Five personality traits and political participation (Weinschenk & Panagopoulos, 2014). Maier and Faas (2015) found that the character trait conflict avoidance has a moderating role: negative attacks are more persuasive for individuals scoring low on conflict avoidance when compared to individuals with a high conflict avoidance score. These studies show that personality plays an important role in how individuals respond to events in their environment, therefore it is also expected that personality can shape the effect of negativity in politics (Weinschenk & Panagopoulos, 2014).
Tolerance of Negativity. While conflict avoidance describes an individual’s tendency to avoid or accept conflicts (Ulbig & Funk, 1999), Tolerance of Negativity measures an individual’s sensitivity to negative messages (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011). With conflict avoidance some people are more sensitive to conflict, while with Tolerance of Negativity people are more sensitive to negative messages than others.
Tolerance of Negativity is a character trait that everybody has in a varying level (Muehling et al., 2018). Defined from a marketing perspective, it is an “individual’s
willingness to tolerate, and ability to endure negative marketing communications” (Muehling et al., 2018, p. 706). In the case of political communication, it is the willingness to tolerate, and ability to endure, negativity in political campaigns based on if the message is uncivil and the relevance of the campaign (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011).
Fridkin and Kenney (2011) were one of the first to introduce the concept of Tolerance of Negativity in the context of negative campaigning. When it comes to negative campaigning they say for some people “anything goes”, while for others certain attacks might “cross the line” (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011, p. 309). Tolerance of Negativity can be understood through the analogy of tolerance of pain (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011). Individuals with a lower pain tolerance are more likely to feel pain when they are hurt physically. When different people are exposed to the same amount of pain, the person with a lower pain tolerance will report a higher level of discomfort. In the same way people with a low tolerance of negative messages are more influenced by negativity. Fridkin and Kenney (2011) concluded that one’s Tolerance of Negativity has an influence on the evaluation of candidates when presented with a negative campaign.
Besides Fridkin and Kenney (2011), only Muehling et al. (2018) have researched Tolerance of Negativity. Although the research by Muehling et al. (2018) takes place in a marketing context, they also found that people with different levels of Tolerance of Negativity
evaluate negative marketing messages in different ways: individuals scoring low on Tolerance of Negativity have a less positive attitude towards the brand that is the sponsor of a negative campaign.
In the conclusion of their research Fridkin and Kenney (2011) hypothesise that
messages consisting of irrelevant material, in this case personal attacks, and uncivil messages will most likely ‘turn off’ voters. Because the concept of Tolerance of Negativity is based on the conflict avoidance trait, one could expect similar influences on turnout that are found when researching the effects of conflict avoidance. As mentioned before, Maier and Faas (2015) found that a negative campaign is more persuasive for those with low conflict avoidance because they are more open to any type of campaign. Ulbig and Funk (1999) concluded that a lower score in conflict avoidance leads to less participation in politics. Extending these findings to the related trait Tolerance of Negativity leads to the following hypotheses: (H3A) The main effect of civility of a negative campaign on turnout intention is
moderated by Tolerance of Negativity: a higher level of Tolerance of Negativity results in a smaller effect and (H3B) The main effect of focus of a negative campaign on turnout intention is moderated by Tolerance of Negativity: a higher level of Tolerance of Negativity results in a smaller effect.
Figure 2 shows a summary of the model tested in this study.
Methods
To test the hypotheses, a 2 x 2 between-subjects survey-embedded experiment with factor civility of the attack (two levels, which are: uncivil and civil) and factor focus of the
attack (two levels, which are: policy focused and personal) was conducted.
Participants
The participants were citizens of the Netherlands, who at the moment of participation had the right to vote in the Netherlands. This target group was chosen because the research aimed to measure turnout intention for Dutch elections. The experiment was conducted in Dutch. Participants were recruited through social media and personal contacts, resulting in a convenience sample. Data collection lasted from the 21st of April 2020 until the 5th of May 2020.
All incomplete responses were removed, resulting in 256 remaining participants.1 One additional participant was removed from the dataset due to filling in an age of 600, which is an inadmissible result. Moreover, four participants were removed because these participants did not have the right to vote in the Netherlands, which excludes them from the target group. After removing the mentioned cases, a sample of 251 participants remained. The mean age was 36.90 years (SD = 17.06). 62.5percent of the participants were female, and 37.1 percent were male. The sample deviates from the population.2
Additional descriptive statistics of the dataset can be seen in Table 1.
1 368participants started the experiment, but only 256finished it. The dropout rate could be explained by the
large amount of questions, and the fact that answering the questions sometimes required a lot of active attention and thought from the participant.
2 In the sample, 62.5percent of the participants were female, and 37.1 percent were male. In 2019, 47.06 percent
of the Dutch population was male and 52.95 percent was female (CBS, 2019). In the sample, 45.8 percent had higher education (vocational education or bachelor degree). In 2018, only 19 percent of Dutch citizens between the age of 15 to 75 finished vocational education or a bachelor (CBS, 2018).
Table 1 Average scores of the sample on descriptive variables
Mean
Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Political orientation* 4.67 2.12 1 10
Political interest** 4.66 1.51 1 7
Tolerance of
Negativity*** 3.88 1.06 1.60 7.00
Turnout intention general
election (DV)**** 6.65 1.12 1 7
Turnout intention
municipal election**** 6.33 1.51 1 7
*Measured on a scale ranging from 1 (very left) to 10 (very right)
**Measured on a scale ranging from 1 (not interested at all) to 7 (very interested) **Mean score measured on a scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high) ****Measured on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (very likely)
Procedure
The survey was conducted online3. After informed consent was obtained, some general information about the participant was collected: if they would describe themselves as ‘left’ or ‘right’ oriented, their general interest in politics and use of media channels for political news
was measured. After these questions, 13 items measured the independent variable Tolerance of Negativity. This was followed by a question measuring how important the participants found certain political topics. One of those topics was public order and safety. This item was used to assess participants’ opinion about the topic used in the stimuli that contained a policy attack. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to one out of four treatment conditions. Each condition consisted of two short Twitter conversations between two Dutch politicians presented on two separate pages (see Appendix B for stimulus material). The participants had to stay on each page for at least 10 seconds.
After exposure to the stimulus materials the participants were presented with questions that served as the manipulation check for the stimuli. Participants were also asked if they had
voted in the 2017 general elections and about their feelings towards the politicians in the stimulus. Following was a question measuring participants turnout intention for the next Dutch general elections: the parliamentary elections in March 2021. Turnout intention is the dependent variable in this research. Lastly, participants filled in questions concerning their demographics such as age, sex and education level. At the end of the questionnaire
participants were debriefed.
Manipulation of civility and focus of the attack
The civility and focus of the attack were manipulated in tweets which resulted in four different conditions. Tweets were chosen as a medium, because Dutch politicians are
relatively active on Twitter. Moreover, Twitter is an environment where negative campaigning is not unheard of for both policy and personal attacks, contributing to the credibility of the manipulations (Gross & Johnson, 2016). In each condition the participants were exposed to two short fictitious Twitter conversations consisting of two tweets: one of Geert Wilders criticising Jesse Klaver, with Klaver responding and one of Lilian Marijnissen criticising Klaas Dijkhoff, with Dijkhoff responding. These politicians were chosen because they are all active on Twitter, well known, from different parties and on different positions on the political spectrum. By exposing the participants to all four politicians, the influence of personal political preference was minimized. The lay-out of all Twitter conversations was identical, using usernames and pictures as used by the politicians on Twitter4.
The civility of the attack was manipulated by adding “inflammatory and superfluous” words to the Tweet (Brooks & Geer, 2007, p. 7). An overview of the manipulated texts can be
4An overview of the stimulus material as presented to the participants can be found in the aforementioned
found in Appendix C5. With the addition of a few words, it was attempted to change the civility of the text, without considerably changing the message or length. Not adding a personal attack to change the civility was of especially great importance. This made it still possible to differentiate a personal focused attack from an uncivil attack.
Focus of the attack was manipulated by focussing the negative campaign on a personal characteristic of the politician or one’s policy concerning public order and safety. Public order and safety were chosen as a general topic for the policy attacks because the issue is not
specifically tied to one party. Therefore, it was a realistic topic of discussion for any of the mentioned politicians. The statements in the tweets were also based on standpoints they -or their party- had expressed in the media. Personal attacks were all focused on the politician’s character.
Measures
Moderator
The variable Tolerance of Negativity was constructed by items based on the items used by Fridkin and Kenney (2011) and Muehling et al. (2018). A few items were added, covering aspects regarding civility. This resulted in a total of 13 statements, measured on a scale ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (7) (see Appendix Efor items). Items 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 and 12 were recoded, translating to scoring lower on the item with having a lower Tolerance of Negativity and vice-versa. An exploratory factor analyses showed that four factors had an eigenvalue above one together explaining 60.4 percent of the variance in the 13 items. The scree plot also showed four points before the point of inflection. These results imply that the scale was four-dimensional.
5 Manipulations were loosely inspired by those of Brooks and Geer (2007). An overview of the manipulations
After inspecting the pattern matrix and interpreting the results, one factor measured Tolerance of Negativity while other factors measured different latent constructs. The scale measuring Tolerance of Negativity consists of five items explaining 26.41 percent of the variance in the original 13 items6. The scale proved to be relatively reliable measuring Tolerance of Negativity on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not tolerant at all) to 7 (very
tolerant). The reliability of the scale could not be improved by removing any items (M =3.88, SD = 1.06, α = .71). A new variable was constructed by computing the mean score of the five
items measuring the latent constructing Tolerance of Negativity, resulting in a variable measuring Tolerance of Negativity.
Dependent variable
The dependent variable turnout intention was measured by asking how likely it was that participants would vote in the Dutch general elections (Tweede Kamerverkiezingen) in March 2021 on a scale ranging from very unlikely (1) to very likely (7)7. The question takes into account social desirability by anticipating into the question that some people do not vote. Duff et al. (2007) formulated this improved way of measuring turnout.
The general elections were chosen to measure turnout intention, because they are the next elections that are held in the Netherlands. Other elections are years away and
subnational. A regional election influences which politicians and parties participate, which could be problematic when measuring turnout intention based on the manipulated tweets. Taking the mentioned issues into account, measuring turnout intention for the general elections appeared to be the best option.
6 All items were at least weak to moderately correlated to each other. The five items and factor loadings can be
found in Appendix G.
Randomization checks
Participants were randomly distributed across the four conditions: 62 participants in the civil personal condition, 61 in the civil policy condition, 67 in the uncivil personal condition and 61 in the uncivil policy condition. The randomization of participants proved to be successful (for results, see Appendix G)
Manipulation checks
After exposure to the stimuli materials, participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with the statement that the presented tweets were uncivil and if they agreed with the statement that the tweets were focused on policy issues8 on a scale ranging from fully
disagree (1) to 7 fully agree (1). The manipulation of civility of the attack and focus of the
attack proved successful (for results, see Appendix G)
Results
Effect of civility on turnout intention
To test the first hypothesis (H1) stating that there is a positive relationship between exposure to a civil campaign and turnout intention when compared to exposure to an uncivil campaign, an Independent-samples t-test was conducted9. The test showed that there was a significant difference between the scores for turnout intention of the civil (M = 6.80, SD = 0.78) and the uncivil condition (M= 6.52, SD= 0.12), t (203.433) = 2.02, p = .045. Figure 3 shows the mean score of turnout intention for the civil and uncivil condition. The effect of civility on turnout intention is small (Cohen’s d = 0.21) As a result, H1 is retained.
8 Other statements were also presented in this battery of questions, but those were not relevant for the
manipulation check.
Effect of focus of the attack on turnout intention
It was expected that there is a positive relationship between exposure to a policy focused attack campaign and turnout intention, when compared to a personal attack (H2). To test this hypothesis, an Independent-samples t-test was performed with the conditions
personal attack and policy attack10 as the independent variable and turnout intention as the dependent variable. There was no significant difference in turnout intention between a policy focused attack (M = 6.70, SD = 1.02) and a personal attack (M = 6.61, SD = 1.21), t (249) = .594, p = .553. The data provided no evidence to support H2, as a result H2 was rejected.
10 In all analyses the focus of an attack is recoded as 1 = policy focused attack and 0 = personal attack Figure 3 Mean score turnout intention for civil and uncivil condition
Moderation: the influence of Tolerance of Negativity
The third hypotheses (H3A and H3B) stating that the main effects of civility and focus of the attack are moderated by Tolerance of Negativity was tested by a multiple regression with moderation11.
Focus of the attack
The regression model predicting turnout intention from the focus of a negative campaign, Tolerance of Negativity and the interaction between the focus of a campaign and one’s Tolerance of Negativity is not statistically significant, F (3,247) = 1.50, p = .215. Thus, it does not help to predict turnout intention in the population.
The interaction between one’s Tolerance of Negativity and a policy focused attack is
not statistically significant, b =.10, t = 1.94, p =.054, 95% CI [0.00, 0.19].
Civility of the attack
A second regression model predicts intention from the civility of a negative campaign, Tolerance of Negativity and the interaction between the civility of a campaign and one’s Tolerance of Negativity. The model is not statistically significant, F (3,247) = 1.63, p = .183. Consequently, it does not help to predict turnout intention in the population.
The interaction between one’s Tolerance of Negativity and a civil attack is not
statistically significant, b = 0.83, t = 0.63, p =.054, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35]. As a result of the performed statistical tests H3A and H3B are rejected.
11 Table H1 in Appendix H shows a regression table summarizing the findings concerning the moderating effect
Sensitivity analyses
To test the robustness of the effects on turnout intention found in the conducted analyses, the same tests were run with the measurement of the dependent variable adapted slightly. This time, turnout intention was measured by asking individuals’ turnout intention for the next municipal elections (gemeenteraadsverkiezingen). The question measuring turnout intention for the municipal elections was identical to the question used to measure turnout intention for the general election, only the type of election and date of the election were changed. The descriptive statistics of the two turnout questions can be found in Table 2.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics turnout questions
Mean
Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Turnout intention general
election (DV)* 6.65 1.12 1 7
Turnout intention
municipal election* 6.33 1.51 1 7
*Measured on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (very likely)
Only two of the four tests showed different results compared to the original analyses.12 The first difference was found in the first hypothesis (H1). An Independent-samples t-test showed that there was not a statistically significant difference between the scores for turnout intention of the civil (M = 6.51, SD = 1.24) and the uncivil condition (M = 6.15, SD = (1.71),
t (231.41) = 1.94, p = .054.13 As a result, H1 would be rejected when measuring turnout intention by the municipal elections. Though with a p-value of .054 the test is not far from statistically significant, which would match the results measuring turnout intention for the general elections.
The second difference was found in the testing of H3B. A regression analysis showed
12 Results that did not differ from results found in the original analyses can be found in Appendix I. 13 Figure I1 in Appendix I shows a bar chart visualising the mean scores.
that Tolerance of negativity moderates the relationship between focus of the attack and
turnout intention for the municipal elections (See Table I1 in Appendix I). This is inconsistent with the earlier findings testing the moderating effect of Tolerance on Negativity on the relationship between focus of the attack and turnout intention for the general elections (see Table I2 in Appendix I). With a p-value of .054 the test for influence of Tolerance of Negativity on the relation between focus of the attack and turnout intention for the general elections is not far from significant. This means that again, the differences in findings lie in a very small window around the critical p-value of .05 indicating a significant result.
To sum up, although not all results withstand a different measure of turnout intention, the differences are relatively small. In both cases the two ways of measuring turnout intention makes a difference between a significant and a non-significant result. For both values are close to the critical p-value of .05, the difference is marginal. Overall, the results found measuring turnout intention through the general elections, are tolerably robust.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to research if Tolerance of Negativity influences the
relationship between exposure to a negative campaign and turnout intention. Within negative campaigns, a differentiation was made between two dimensions of negativity: the civility of a negative campaign and the focus. It was expected that an uncivil attack compared to a civil attack had a negative influence on turnout intention. Furthermore, this study investigated if a personal attack lead to a lower turnout intention compared to a policy focused attack.
Moreover, it was expected that these relationships were influenced by an individual’s level of Tolerance of Negativity.
This study found a negative effect between exposure to an uncivil campaign and turnout intention, when compared to exposure to a civil campaign. While the effect was small,
it confirmed findings by other scholars who found that incivility influences citizens’ opinions about politicians and specifically turnout intention as well (Brooks & Geer, 2007; Kahn &
Kenney, 1999).
It was expected that exposure to a personal attack negatively influences turnout intention when compared to policy focused attack. This effect was not found. The results imply that, while the civility of a message influences turnout intention, the focus of a message does not. Earlier research found that personal attacks negatively influences the evaluation of the sponsors of a negative campaign (Carraro & Castelli, 2010). Furthermore, personal attacks were perceived as disturbing (Brooks & Geer, 2007). The study at hand suggests that these negative attitudes as a result of exposure to a personal attack in a negative campaign found by earlier studies, do not translate to turnout intention.
From the sensitivity analyses that were conducted one can conclude that the results found in this study should be interpreted with care. With minor changes in the measurement of the dependent variable, results changed which indicates an uncertainty concerning the robustness of the findings. It is possible that other minor changes that were not considered in the sensitivity analyses could influence the outcomes of this study as well.
Although only the first hypothesis was retained, testing the influence of civility on turnout intention, findings do not completely go against the expectations one could have based on earlier research. There already was a striking difference in outcomes of studies researching negative campaigning and turnout intention, without any consensus on if and how negative campaigning influences turnout intention. Some studies finding mobilizing effects while others find demobilizing effects or no effect at all (Lau et al., 2007). Because of the Dutch political culture which is based on mutual respect and collaborations, it was expected that if these norms were violated by using an uncivil or policy attack it would put citizens off voting (Walter, 2009). Since these effects were not found, or in a small way, it could be
speculated that Dutch citizens have become more used to personal attacks in negative campaigning.
An additional point that should be taken into consideration, is the fact that turnout intention was measured by inquiring about participants’ turnout intention for the Dutch general elections. A majority of the people is inclined to vote in general elections14 and therefore exposure to one campaign message might not change this. Additional studies could incorporate more frequent exposure to negative campaigns. In further research turnout intention for other elections than the general elections could be measured. This follows from the sensitivity analyses which showed that changing the operationalization of turnout
intention changes the results of the study slightly. Turnout intention could also be measured on a broader scale ranging from 1 to 100. A pre-test for the dependent variable could also be conducted.
The contradicting results of studies when it comes to turnout intention could possibly be explained by individual differences in character traits. These differences in traits and personalities might cause that in some cases a certain negative attack has a mobilizing effect while sometimes it does not. This research hypothesized that one’s Tolerance of Negativity influences the relationship between exposure to campaigns differing in civility and focus. Contrary to findings by Fridkin and Kenney (2011) and Muehling et al. (2018) this research did not find significant proof of Tolerance of Negativity having an influence on -in this case- the relationship between negative campaigning and turnout intention. A possible explanation for this is that the scale measuring Tolerance of Negativity was not fully reliable and only explained a small percentage of the variance. There is a scarcity of research on the
operationalization of Tolerance of Negativity and future research could help to develop the
14 In 2017, 80.8% of the citizens who had the right to vote, voted during the Dutch general elections (Schmeets,
concept further and perfect the operationalization.
This study has limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results. One limitation of this study is the sample, which could have influenced the research for two reasons: firstly, gender in the sample was not representative of the population and secondly, a large part of the sample was highly educated. People who are higher educated are more involved in politics (Schmeets, 2017). This high involvement leads to less variation in turnout intention to be explained by other factors. Because higher educated individuals are more involved in politics it is likely that they are already inclined to vote, which is not easily influenced by a single exposure to a campaign. That a significant result was found for the influence of civility on turnout intention is therefore noteworthy. Additionally, the scale measuring the moderator Tolerance of Negativity was not reliable and constructed through a combination of two other scales. It therefore did not capture the full complexity of the trait and it should be developed further. Another limitation is the beforementioned political culture of the Netherlands where negative campaigning is not that prevalent (Walter, 2009).
Therefore, it could be that the manipulations of a negative campaign in the Netherlands are not as realistic which could affect the external validity of this study.
Despite the mentioned limitations, this study contributes to the existing literature on the effects of negative campaigning and citizens’ personal characteristics which could influence this relationship. The study involves a further development of the recent concept Tolerance of Negativity by testing new items and researching it in the Dutch political context. It is an attempt to add to the existing literature that finds an explanation for the varying results in studies researching turnout intention in citizens personal differences. This study also provided a successful example of the manipulation of civility and focus of the attack in the Dutch language. The manipulations can be used as an example for research considering these dimensions.
In conclusion, this thesis showed that exposure to an uncivil negative campaign leads to a lower turnout intention in comparison to a civil negative campaign. The focus of a negative campaign did not play a role in turnout intention. Neither of the main effects on turnout intention was moderated by an individual’s level of Tolerance of Negativity. These findings suggest that in the Netherlands, while there is a direct effect between civility and turnout intention, this relationship is not moderated by Tolerance of Negativity. Tolerance of Negativity does not influence an individual’s turnout intention, regardless of the civility or focus of the campaign.
References
Ansolabehere S, Iyengar S. (1995). Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and
Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press
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(4), 901-909. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586120
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? American political science review, 88(4), 829-838. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082710
Brooks, D., & Geer, J. (2007). Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x
Carraro, L., & Castelli, L. (2010). The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is the Source Really Blamed? Political Psychology, 31(4), 617-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00771.x
CBS. (2019) Bevolking; kerncijfers. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from
https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/37296NED/table?fromstatweb
CBS. (2018). Trends in Nederland 2018. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https://longreads.cbs.nl/trends18/maatschappij/cijfers/onderwijs/
Duff, B., Hanmer, M. J., Park, W. H., & White, I. K. (2007). Good excuses: Understanding Who Votes With An Improved Turnout Question. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl045
Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G. (1998). A spot check: Casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American journal of political science, 573-595.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2991771
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889-906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. (2011). Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 307-325.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00494.x
Geer, J. (2006) In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign Advertising and Voter Turnout: New Evidence for a Stimulation Effect. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 721-740.
Gross, J., & Johnson, K. (2016). Twitter Taunts and Tirades: Negative Campaigning in the
Age of Trump. 49(4), 748–754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516001700
Hopmann, D. N., Vliegenthart, R., & Maier, J. (2018). The effects of tone, focus, and
incivility in election debates. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 28(3), 283-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1394310
Hitchon, J. & Chang, C. (1995) ‘Effects of Gender Schematic Processing on the Reception of
Political Commercials for Men and Women candidates’, Communication Research,
22, 430–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365095022004003
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 102-138. Retrieved from:
http://t.personalityproject.org/revelle/syllabi/classreadings/john.pdf
Kester, J. (2020, March 31). VVD groeit fors in eerste maand coronacrisis, FVD en PVV op verlies. Retrieved May 26, 2020, from
https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/panels/opiniepanel/alle-uitslagen/item/vvd-groeit-fors-in-eerste-maand-coronacrisis-fvd-en-pvv-op-verlies/
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(4), 877-889. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586118
Krasno, J. S., & Green, D. P. (2008). Do Televised Presidential Ads Increase Voter Turnout? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 245-261.
Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2001). Negative Campaigning by US Senate Candidates. Party
Politics, 7(1), 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068801007001004
Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of US Senate
elections. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. B. (2007). The Effects of Negative Political
Campaigns: A Meta‐Analytic Reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176-1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x
Maier, J. & Faas, T. (2015). The Impact of Personality on Viewers’ Reactions to Negative
Candidate Statements in Televised Debates. Politische Psychologie, 2(5), 169-187.
Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Muehling, D., Vijayalakshmi, A., & Laczniak, R. (2018). The effects of Tolerance of Negativity on consumers’ responses to comparative attack advertising. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 24(7), 703–719.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1216462
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
Nai, A., & Walter, A. S. (2015). New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Why Attack
Politics Matters. Colchester, United Kingdom: ECPR Press.
Rademaker, G. (guest). (2020, May 26). In Beau [TV show], The Netherlands: RTL4. Retrieved from: https://www.rtl.nl/video/71b8203a-0c4b-42d4-a25e-8dae479fa5ed/
Rinke, E. M., Wessler, H., Löb, C., & Weinmann, C. (2013). Deliberative Qualities of Generic News Frames: Assessing the Democratic Value of Strategic Game and Contestation Framing in Election Campaign Coverage. Political
Communication, 30(3), 474-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737432
Schulman, S., & Rivera, J. (2009). Promoting civility in political campaigns: Will
campaigners ever leave the “gloves” on? (Working Paper No. 2-12/2009). Retrieved
from William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy website:
http://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/hughescenter/content/docs/Publications/Paper%20fo r%20the%20Website.pdf
Schmeets, H. (2017, December 12). Politieke betrokkenheid in Nederland. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2017/50/politieke-betrokkenheid-in-nederland
Walter, A. S. (2009) ‘Met Bos bent u de klos: Negatieve campagnevoering tijdens de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen van 2002, 2003 en 2006’, in Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum
Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 2007, Groningen: DNPP/Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, pp. 128–150. Retrieved from: https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=fd4caa3a-d13d-40b4-aed9-bfd7b78552b7
Walter, A. S. (2014). Negative Campaigning in Western Europe: Similar or
Different? Political Studies, 62(S1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12084
Walter, A. S., & Van der Brug, W. (2013). When the gloves come off: Inter-party variation in negative campaigning in Dutch elections, 1981–2010. Acta Politica, 48(4), 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2013.5
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210374122
Wattenberg, M. P., & Brians, C. L. (1999). Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?. American political science review, 93(4), 891-899.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2586119
Weinschenk, A. C., & Panagopoulos, C. (2014). Personality, Negativity, and Political Participation. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2(1), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v2i1.280
Appendix A
Online experiment in Dutch
Beste deelnemer,
Bedankt voor uw interesse in dit onderzoek over Politieke Communicatie uitgevoerd onder supervisie van de Graduate School of Communication van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. De studie waaraan u deelneemt gaat over politieke communicatie. In de volgende vragenlijst zal uw mening gevraagd worden over een aantal algemene politieke zaken en uitspraken gedaan door politici. Ook zullen er wat vragen gesteld worden gerelateerd aan uw persoonlijk profiel, waaronder persoonlijke voorkeuren en karakter, dit zal ons helpen met het
interpreteren van de resultaten. Alleen volwassenen met kiesrecht in Nederland kunnen deelnemen aan het onderzoek. Het doel van het onderzoek is meer inzicht te krijgen in de mogelijke effecten van verschillende manieren van politieke communicatie. Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 10 minuten.
Bij voorbaat dank voor uw deelname.
Vriendelijke groeten, Elsemieke Dirks
Door het invullen van de vragenlijst gaat u, volledig en vrijwillig, akkoord met het deelnemen aan deze studie. Met dit behoudt u het recht om toestemming in te trekken, zonder hier een reden voor te geven. Houd er rekening mee dat u tot 7 dagen na het voltooien van de vragenlijst heeft om uw toestemming voor het gebruik van de data verkregen door het onderzoek terug te trekken. U bent zich ervan bewust dat deelname aan het onderzoek op ieder moment kan worden gestopt.
Als uw onderzoeksresultaten worden gebruikt in wetenschappelijke publicaties of op een andere manier publiek gemaakt worden, zal dit op een manier gebeuren waarop uw
anonimiteit volledig is gewaarborgd. Uw persoonlijke data zal niet aan derde partijen worden doorgegeven zonder uw toestemming.
Wanneer u meer informatie zou willen over het onderzoek, nu of in de toekomst, kunt u contact opnemen met Elsemieke Dirks via elsemiekedirks@gmail.com. Mocht u klachten hebben over dit onderzoek, dan kunt u contact opnemen met het aangewezen lid van de Ethics Commision dat de ASCoR representeert, op het volgende adres: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
Vink het onderstaande vakje aan om geïnformeerde toestemming te geven voor deelname aan dit onderzoek.
Door het onderstaande vakje aan te vinken gaat u akkoord met de volgende uitspraken: • Ik wil deelnemen aan dit onderzoek en ik begrijp dat alle verzamelde data volledig
anoniem is.
• Ik heb alle informatie op deze en de voorgaande pagina gelezen en begrepen. • Ik ben 18 jaar of ouder.
o
Ik ga akkoord met de bovengenoemde uitspraken en neem deel aan het onderzoek (1)Gezien de aard van deze vragenlijst is het van groot belang dat u de tijd neemt om zorgvuldig de vragen te lezen en de gepresenteerde afbeeldingen goed te bekijken. Zorg ervoor dat u de informatie die u gepresenteerd krijgt volledig heeft begrepen, herlees wanneer nodig de instructie. Tijdens de vragenlijst kunt u niet teruggaan om antwoorden op eerdere vragen te wijzigen.
De vragenlijst start zodra u door gaat naar de volgende pagina.
Page Break
In de politiek wordt soms gesproken over "links" en "rechts".
"1" staat voor iemand die volledig "links" georiënteerd is, "10" voor iemand die volledig "rechts" georiënteerd is.
Wanneer u denkt aan uw eigen positie, waar zou u uzelf plaatsen op deze schaal?
o
1 - links (1)o
2 (2)o
3 (3)o
4 (4)o
5 (5)o
6 (6)o
7 (7)o
8 (8)o
9 (9)o
10 - rechts (10)In hoeverre bent u geïnteresseerd in politiek in het algemeen?
o
1- helemaal niet (1)o
2 (2)o
3 (3)o
4 (4)o
5 (5)o
6 (6)o
7 - heel erg (7)In welke mate gebruikt u de volgende media kanalen om politiek nieuws te volgen? 1 - nooit (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 - zeer veel (7) Papieren krant (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Online krant (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TV (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Twitter (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Facebook (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Instagram (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page BreakLees de volgende uitspraken aandachtig. In hoeverre ben u het eens met de volgende uitspraken?
1 - volledig oneens (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 - volledig mee eens (7) 1. Sommige negatieve uitspraken in de politiek zijn zo naar dat ik geen aandacht meer geef aan wat de politicus zegt. (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2. Gemene opmerkingen gericht
op een politicus zijn persoonlijkheid zijn geoorloofd tijdens verkiezingscampagnes (2)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3. Ik vind het onacceptabel als eencampagne van een politicus het beleid van de opponent
aanvalt. (3)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
4. Ik tolereer over het algemeen negativiteit (bijvoorbeeld negatieve uitspraken of berichten) goed. (4)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
5. Negatieve opmerkingen over het persoonlijke leven vantoen een politicus jong was vind ik
interessant. (5)
6. Politici moeten beleefd met elkaar
omgaan. (6)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
7. Ik heb veel geduld met politieke berichten die anderen
misschien aanstootgevend of bezwaarlijk vinden. (7)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
8. Ik kan goed tegen negativiteit in de politiek. (8)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
9. Aanvallende opmerkingen gericht op persoonlijke kenmerken van eenpoliticus zijn ongepast. (9)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
10. Ik raak geërgerd wanneer politici uitspraken doen die een negatieve lading
hebben. (10)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
11. Ik ben open-minded als het aankomt op politieke campagnes waar anderen misschien bezwaar tegen hebben. (11)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
12. Onbeleefd zijn tegen een opponent in de politiek vind ik nietkunnen. (12)
13. Ik ben open-minded als het aankomt op politieke campagnes die anderen misschien vervelend of irritant vinden. (13)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page Break1- helemaal niet belangrijk (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 - heel erg belangrijk (7) Europa (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Openbare orde en veiligheid (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Economie (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Zorg (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Infrastructuur (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Onderwijs (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Natuur, milieu en duurzaamheid (7)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ontwikkelingswerk (8)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Asielbeleid (9)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ouderenzorg (10)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Zijn er, naast de bovenstaande onderwerpen, nog andere onderwerpen waarvan u het persoonlijk belangrijk vindt dat de politiek hier aandacht aan besteedt?
U mag uw antwoord in steekwoorden invullen.
o
Ja, namelijk... (1) ________________________________________________o
Nee (2)Op de volgende twee pagina's krijgt u Twitterberichten te zien van Nederlandse politici. Lees de Tweets goed. Nadat u de pagina verlaat kunt u niet meer terugkeren. Na 10 seconden verschijnt de knop rechts onder in beeld waarmee u door kunt naar de volgende pagina.
Page Break
Random exposure to one of four conditions as found in Appendix B
First image consisting of two Tweets
In hoeverre bent u het eens met de volgende uitspraken over de Twitter berichten die u zojuist heeft gezien?
1 - Volledig mee oneens (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 - Volledig mee eens (7) Negatief (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Hard (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Grappig (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Onbeleefd (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Gericht op kritiek op beleid van eenpoliticus (5)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Positief (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Emotioneel (7)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Geloofwaardig (8)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Beleefd (9)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Gericht op kritiek op persoonlijke kenmerken van een politicus (10)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page BreakSommige mensen stemmen tegenwoordig om de één of andere reden niet. Heeft u tijdens de laatste Tweede Kamer verkiezingen in maart 2017 gestemd?
o
Ja (1)o
Nee (2)o
Ik had geen kiesrecht op dat moment (3)o
Weet ik niet meer (4)Page Break
We willen graag dat u elke persoon hieronder beoordeelt met iets wat we de gevoelsthermometer noemen.
Beoordelingen tussen de 50 en 100 graden betekenen dat u zich positief en warm voelt tegenover de persoon. Beoordelingen tussen de 0 en 50 graden betekenen dat u zich negatief en koud voelt tegenover de persoon.
Geert Wilders ()
Jesse Klaver ()
Klaas Dijkhoff ()
Lilian Marijnissen ()
In maart 2021 vinden er Tweede Kamer verkiezingen plaats in Nederland. Sommige mensen stemmen tegenwoordig om de één of andere reden niet.
Als de Tweede Kamer verkiezingen morgen zouden zijn, hoe is het dat u dan gaat stemmen? 1 - zeer onwaarschijnlijk (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 - zeer waarschijnlijk (7) Hoe waarschijnlijk
zou het zijn dat u gaat stemmen? (1)
Als de Tweede Kamer verkiezingen morgen zouden zijn en u gaat stemmen, op welke partij zou u stemmen?
o
Artikel1/Bij1 (1)o
CDA (2)o
ChristenUnie (3)o
DENK (4)o
D66 (5)o
Forum voor Democratie (6)o
GroenLinks (7)o
Partij voor de Dieren (8)o
PvdA (9)o
PVV (10)o
SGP (11)o
SP (12)o
VVD (13)o
50PLUS (14)o
Blanco (15)o
Weet ik niet (17)o
Anders, namelijk... (16) ________________________________________________Page Break
Kijkt u wel eens naar talkshows op tv waar politici te gast zijn?
o
Ja (1)o
Nee (4)Page Break
In maart 2022 vinden er Gemeenteraadsverkiezingen plaats in Nederland. Sommige mensen stemmen tegenwoordig om de één of andere reden niet.
Als de Gemeenteraadsverkiezingen morgen zouden zijn, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat u dan gaat stemmen? 1 - zeer onwaarschijnlik (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 - zeer waarschijnlijk (7) Hoe waarschijnlijk
zou het zijn dat u gaat stemmen? (1)
Ten slotte, een aantal vragen over uzelf. Deze vragen zullen helpen met het interpreteren van de resultaten.
