Make us your home page

Deep in brain, attack ads win

In poll after poll, Americans say they don't like negative campaigning. Yet in the final week of the Florida primary, more than 90 percent of the ads broadcast were attack ads. That's not likely to change in the run-up to Super Tuesday.

So why do candidates rely so heavily on a kind of advertising voters say they abhor?

Because it works. To understand why, you have to consider what we know about how emotions work — and the different ways our conscious and unconscious minds and brains process "negativity" during elections.

In 2008, my colleague Joel Weinberger and I tested voters' conscious and unconscious responses to two ads. The first was an anti-Barack Obama ad of Hillary Rodham Clinton's. "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep," it began, "but there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing." It then went on to suggest that Clinton, because of her seasoning in national politics, was far better qualified to answer that phone than the less-experienced Obama.

The second was an anti-John McCain ad put out by the Campaign to Defend America. It was designed to suggest that a vote for McCain was a vote for four more years of George W. Bush policies. The ad juxtaposed the policies promoted by the two men and interchanged their heads, concluding that the Republican nominee was "McSame as Bush."

The voters we surveyed claimed to despise both ads, describing them in focus groups as "pandering." They insisted the ads would backfire with them. But using a well-established method for assessing which words the commercials activated unconsciously, we discovered that although voters consciously disliked both commercials, the ads were nevertheless highly effective. Both "stuck," triggering negative associations with Obama and McCain in the minds of most viewers. When viewing the face of Obama, the words most strongly activated by the "3 a.m." ad were "weak," "lightweight," "terrorist" and "Muslim." The word that stuck unconsciously after the "McSame" ad was "Bush."

Viewers may have rejected the ads consciously, but that doesn't mean they weren't unconsciously affected.

Our conscious reactions reflect our conscious values. In the case of campaigns, for most people, those values include a belief that people should run on their merits and stop tearing each other down. But unconsciously, our brains are highly reactive to threat — especially when, as in the case of an ad, the threat isn't immediately countered or refuted. A well-crafted positive ad can "stick" too, but there's nothing like a sinister portrayal of a greedy, self-centered villain to stir up our unconscious minds.

Every political strategist knows that there are four stories you have to control if you want to win: the story you're telling about yourself, the story your opponent is telling about himself, the story your opponent is telling about you, and the story you're telling about your opponent. Newt Gingrich lost Iowa because he was talking only about himself.

The reason it's so crucial for politicians to activate both negative and positive emotions is that they are not, as our intuition would suggest, just opposites. Emotions such as anxiety, fear and disgust involve very different neural circuits than, say, happiness or enthusiasm. A candidate's job is to get all those neural circuits firing, both the ones that draw voters in and the ones that push them away from other candidates.

That doesn't require making things up about your adversaries. You don't have to bend the truth too far to paint a worrisome picture of any of the candidates this year — or to present an image that's positive (at least with some creative air-brushing).

But in hard times with flawed candidates, expect a lot of negative campaign ads between now and November.

Drew Westen is a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University.

© 2012 Los Angeles Times

Deep in brain, attack ads win 02/21/12 [Last modified: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:18pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Tribune News Service.

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours