Outsourcing negativity works
by digby
From the "stuff that common sense will tell you but that political science proves" file:
Abstract: Prior work finds that voters punish candidates for sponsoring attack ads. What remains unknown is the extent to which a negative ad is more effective if it is sponsored by a party or independent group instead. We conducted three experiments in which we randomly assigned participants to view a negative ad that was identical except for its sponsor.
We find that candidates can benefit from having a party or group “do their dirty work,” but particularly if a group does, and that the most likely explanation for why this is the case is that many voters simply do not connect candidates to the ads sponsored by parties and groups. We also find that in some circumstances a group-sponsored attack produces less polarization than one sponsored by a party. We conclude by discussing the implications our research has for current debates about the proper role of independent groups in electoral politics.
I'm pretty sure that people doing attack ads instinctively understand that it's better if a nasty attack comes from some anodyne sounding "group" than the candidate doing the attacking. A superficial observation of human nature will tell you that many of us generally don't like mean and nasty people and think the less of them for being that way. (I will make an exception for rightwingers, who prefer mean and nasty.) So it stands to reason that if you're trying to get the votes of undecided or independent voters, it's a good idea to put some distance between yourself and negative attacks.
It's always nice to have common sense scientifically validated. But it is common sense.
.