The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment
Abstract
The conventional wisdom about negative political advertisements holds that no one likes them, but they work, that is, they have the consequences their sponsors intend. Moreover, many analysts have expressed concern over the detrimental effects of such negativism on the American political system. We examine the accuracy of the conventional wisdom and the legitimacy of the fears about the consequences for the political system via meta-analysis, a systematic, quantitative review of the literature. The data do not support either contention. Negative political ads appear to be no more effective than positive ads and do not seem to have especially detrimental effects on the political system. Eleven subsidiary hypotheses about particular circumstances in which significant effects are likely to be found are tested and rejected. Discussion focuses on why negative political advertisements have become so popular in practice when there is so little evidence that they work especially well.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Negative versus Positive Television Advertising in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–1988
Kaid, L. L., & Johnston, A. (1991) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02323.x · Cited by 172
Cited by
The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2585837 · Cited by 1,380
Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research
Geys, B. (2006) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2005.09.002 · Cited by 860
Political Trust in a Cynical Age
Citrin, J., & Stoker, L. (2018) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050316-092550 · Cited by 722
Affective News: The Automated Coding of Sentiment in Political Texts
Young, L., & Soroka, S. (2012) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.671234 · Cited by 609
News, Politics, and Negativity
Soroka, S., & McAdams, S. (2015) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.881942 · Cited by 420
Metadata
- Authors
- Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 851-875
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W1993707151
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 41.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2586117
- The paper
- Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586117
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
