Negative campaigning: time to face the consequences Estimating the effects of different dimensions of negative campaigning on the likeability of the target, the likeability of the sender and political cynicism. Hester van Soest 10553363 Master’s Thesis Graduate School of Communication Political Communication Dhr. Alessandro Nai 27-6-2019 Words: 7.471 Abstract Negative campaigning has been thoroughly researched in the United States; however, the U.S. is not the only country where negative campaigning is present. Negative campaigning is also commonly used in multiparty systems such as the Netherlands. Research has lacked to investigate negative campaigning in a Dutch context. Furthermore, little attention has been given to the different dimensions of negative campaigning, such as a difference in aim or a difference in tone. Negative campaigning is presumed by politicians and campaign professionals to work in altering the view of the opponent, however, it has unintended effects as well. Thus, this study aims to investigate the effects of different dimensions of negative campaigning (aim: issue vs. personal/tone: civil vs. uncivil) on the likeability of the target (intended), the likeability of the sender and political cynicism (unintended). Furthermore, the research on the influence of personal attitudes on these expected effects is remarkably scarce. Therefore, this study also investigates the moderating effect of populist attitudes on the effects found on political cynicism. No significant difference was found between either dimension of negative campaigning on the likeability of the target/sender. It was, however, found that a personal attack results in more political cynicism than an issue attack. An uncivil attack also results in more political cynicism than a civil attack. There was no evidence found for the moderation of populist attitudes. The results show, that different dimensions of negative campaigning do not have the desired effects but do have the unintended effect of increasing political cynicism. This leads us to advise politicians to be aware of the consequences of negative campaigning. They should not just focus on gaining votes but should take into account their important role in society. Keywords: Negative campaigning; aim; tone; likeability of the sender; likeability of target; political cynicism; populist attitudes. 2 Introduction When one looks at trends in politics and political marketing, it is almost impossible not to discuss the United States. Most of the important changes and trends in politics first arise there (Baines, Scheucher & Plasser, 2001). A rise in negative campaigning was noted by scholars in the United States as early as the 1990s (Kaid & Johnston, 1991; Jamieson, 1992). Negative campaigning is defined as ‘criticism leveled by one candidate against another’ (Geer, 2006). The rise in negativity seems to continue with the 2012 U.S. presidential election being described as the most negative one yet (Hill, Capella & Cho, 2014). A lot of the examples of negative campaigning are indeed from the United States, but this does not mean that negative campaigning is not used in the rest of the world. Elmelund- Præstekær (2010) states that the American two-party system seems to generate more negativity than the European multiparty systems, nonetheless negative campaigning still exists in Europe. One of the countries where negative campaigning is present is the Netherlands (Walter & van der Brug, 2013). Very few scholars have researched negative campaigning there (Walter, 2014a). The U.S. and the Netherlands are each other’s complete opposites when it comes to the political system; in the U.S. the democrats and republicans compete for the presidency, whereas in the Netherlands no less than 28 parties participated in the last national elections. Due to these immense differences in political systems it is interesting to research if the effects of negative campaigning, found in American research, can also be found in the Netherlands. When looking at the presence of negative campaigning in Dutch politics, the right-wing party PVV is one of the more well-known examples, with party leader Geert Wilders attacking other parties on a daily basis (Vliegenthart & Walter, 2010). Newcomers in Dutch politics, like DENK and Forum voor Democratie, take this negativity to a whole new level with very personal attacks. DENK leader Tunahan Kuzu shamed the speaker of the house of representatives 3 (Khadija Arib), on her becoming too ‘verkaasd’1 and forgetting her Moroccan heritage (Kouwenhoven & Logtenberg, 2017). More established Dutch parties are also taking a turn for the negative; Klaas Dijkhoff (VVD) called Rob Jetten (D66) a ‘Klimaat drammer’2, saying he was whining too much about climate change and should focus on other issues (Jonker & de Winther, 2019). These examples show that negative campaigning is very present in Dutch politics (Walter, van der Brug & van Praag, 2014), and the effects previously found in predominantly U.S. research should therefore also be investigated in the Netherlands. Negativity campaigning can have different dimensions and some of these dimensions are especially important when looking at negativity in the Netherlands. There can be differences in the aim of the negativity or the tone of the attack (Auter & Fine, 2016; Fridkin & Kenney, 2008). The differences in aim are often either an issue attack or a personal attack, and the differences in tone are often referred to as being either civil or uncivil (Kenski, Filer & Conway- Silva, 2018; Auter & Fine, 2016). These two dimensions are important in the Netherlands, since multiparty systems need to take coalition forming into account (Haselmayer & Jenny, 2018). When really uncivil attacks or really personal attacks are used during the campaign, politicians might burn bridges which makes it difficult to form coalitions. Coalition forming is becoming harder in the Netherlands, with the last formation of government taking a record time of 225 days. The effects that certain types of negative campaigning can have on coalition forming is precisely the reason why this is important to study in the Netherlands. Negative campaigning can have intended and unintended effects (Baumgartner, 2013). One of the intended effects of negative campaigning could be to change the opinion about the target of the campaign. That is why this experiment will investigate the effect of the different dimensions of negative campaigning on the likeability of the target. While trying to change the likeability of their target, politicians can also influence their own likeability in a negative way, 1 Literally: becoming too much of a ‘cheese head’, meaning a person is becoming very Dutch. 2 Literally: climate whiner, ‘whining’ too much about climate change issues. 4 because the constituency can perceive attacks as being too harsh or unfair (Roese & Sande, 1993). This ‘backlash-effect’ is often not taken into account when politicians decide to go negative. Scholars have also given less attention to this effect since they predominantly focus on the intended effects of negative campaigning (Lau, Sigelman & Rovner, 2007). Another unintended effect can arise in a more ‘long-term’ way. Negativity has been shown to increase political cynicism, which is not an intended goal of politicians (Dardis, Shen & Edwards, 2008). Political cynicism is ‘the extent to which people hold politicians and politics in disrepute’ (Agger, Goldstein & Pearl, 1961). Politicians should set an example for citizens and should in no way reinforce cynicism. Research on the intended and especially the unintended effects of these different types of negative campaigning is scarce and needs to be extended to fill the gap in current literature. Moreover, research is needed to warn and educate politicians about the harm they might cause society when using certain types of negative campaigning. Just like political cynicism, populism has seen a rise in recent years (Inglehart & Norris, 2016), both of these phenomena have a negative influence on the state of our democracy. This is why not only the direct effects of negativity on political cynicism need to be examined, but also the role populist attitudes play in reinforcing these effects. Research has focused on the way personal convictions can strengthen the effects of negative campaigns (Rooduijn, van der Brug, de Lange & Parlevliet, 2017). Studies have shown that populists become more cynical towards politics than non-populists after being exposed to negativity (Rooduijn et al., 2017). It is, therefore, interesting to see how populist attitudes moderate the direct effects found of negative campaigning on political cynicism. These results could again warn politicians of the unintended effects of negative campaigning. This leads to the following research question: RQ: Do different forms of negative campaigning (aim: issue vs. personal; tone: civil vs. uncivil) have different effects when it comes to the likeability of the target (intended), the 5 likeability of the sender and political cynicism (unintended) and are the effects found on political cynicism stronger for people with populist attitudes? Besides the theoretical relevance, this research will also be of importance to politicians and campaign professionals. This study can help them decide if negative campaigning could have a desirable effect and what specific form of negative campaigning would work best for them. Furthermore, it could warn them of the unintended effects that can also arise when using negative