Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

robertfrom tampa — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:47:14 GMT

Makes a lot of sense to me. Someone should give this guy some money so he can do further studies on this subject

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

ademeyer — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:13:05 GMT

Maybe all political ads should be banned. Why can't we make these decisions rationally?

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

bragova — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:27:09 GMT

Interesting. But the "strong, positive emotional response" to scantily clad models is almost entirely a sexual response of men to women. Women respond sexually too--but to handsome men in expensive suits. Obama is far ahead of McCain among women voters.

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

Boulder Sue — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:43:40 GMT

What about a very strong positive ad that acts as a defense against the fight or flight ad, something that gets the adrenaline going but in a waythat instills confidence against the perceived danger in a very negative ad seeking to evoke fear? Are there any studies on such a thing?

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

diana-g — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:25:55 GMT

My favorite ad of all time is the Coke commercial where everyone is holding hands and singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...." It probably speaks to the wannabe hippie in me, but I it's positive without being sexually suggestive, and obviously it's memorable. And, I don't like Coke. I prefer Pepsi. In other words, there's more going on than fight or flight, and I happen to think we're just way more complex than that. I think it's a dumb article, and should have been saved for Halloween so at least it could make an excuse for itself.

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

jrmlang — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:51:54 GMT

whatever the intent it does not make it right

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

teacheskidsincalifornia — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:35:36 GMT

I agree with Mr. Romano's article. It doesn't matter what is really said, even if the truth is far from the actual ad, the negative stuff was still said. It is still ingrained or imprinted in the brain of those who watched.

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

shotgun — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:23:06 GMT

Negative ads only teach you where the Mute button is.

re: Expertinent: The Biology of Negative Advertising

ej63 — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:56:51 GMT

I notice in attack ads, it almost always seems to be the case that it is images or video of the opponent in question, with a third party narrating the voice over with a serious or dark sounding voice, and then in the last second or so we get "this message approved by __." So it seems from my understanding a heavy amount of the psychological manipulation comes from having the opponents image displayed during the negative attacks, so the vast majority of negative emotions become associated with the opponent. Would this psychological manipulation be as effective if the proponent of the ad had to make the attacks himself, so if they wished to go down that road they would have to risk associating themselves with those negative emotions. I would wonder if candidates would be as willing to bring slime to the table if they had to do so themselves, as debates seem to be far less "slimey" with the candidates themselves then television ads.