| Abstract: | Although there is evidence that negative advertising “works” at least some of the time, little is known about how candidates should respond when they are attacked. In this study, we proceed from the assumption that hard-hitting attacks on relevant topics (those that speak to how someone will perform in office), if well-crafted and credible, are most likely to have the desired outcome and, hence, are the ones that targeted candidates can least afford to ignore. We use data from two experiments, first, to confirm this assumption and, second, to assess the relative effectiveness of five response types: counterattacks, denials, counterimaging, justifications, and charges of mudslinging. Our results suggest that while some responses work better than others, there are a variety of ways, both positive and negative, to “reframe” a campaign attack so as to diminish its potential impact on voters. |
