Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game. / Bhattacharya, Sourav.

In: Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 47, No. 3, 10.2016, p. 697–727.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game. / Bhattacharya, Sourav.

In: Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 47, No. 3, 10.2016, p. 697–727.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Bhattacharya, S 2016, 'Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game', Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 697–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-016-0988-6

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bhattacharya, Sourav. / Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game. In: Social Choice and Welfare. 2016 ; Vol. 47, No. 3. pp. 697–727.

BibTeX

@article{7ceda8f78d754f7d9f68dc2fcd5e4b23,
title = "Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game",
abstract = "We present a model of political campaigning where a candidate chooses between promoting oneself (positive campaign) or attacking the rival (negative campaign). Candidates vary only by quality. Campaign choices determine the subject of public deliberation: If a candidate runs a positive campaign and his rival a negative campaign, the voters learn the quality of the “focal” candidate. Thus, negative campaigns may be used either to expose the rival candidate (informative role) or to turn attention away from oneself (non-informative role). The effect of negative campaigns depends on whether it is faced with another negative campaign (cross talk) or a positive campaign (fruitful debate). We suggest that in order to ascertain the effect of negative advertising, studies should take into account the campaigns employed by both candidates. Voter beliefs about candidate quality plays a major role in campaign selection: while the incidence of negative campaigning goes down as the prior probability of a candidate being good increases, the probability of selection of the correct candidate is non-monotonic in the said prior.",
author = "Sourav Bhattacharya",
year = "2016",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1007/s00355-016-0988-6",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "697–727",
journal = "Social Choice and Welfare",
issn = "0176-1714",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game

AU - Bhattacharya, Sourav

PY - 2016/10

Y1 - 2016/10

N2 - We present a model of political campaigning where a candidate chooses between promoting oneself (positive campaign) or attacking the rival (negative campaign). Candidates vary only by quality. Campaign choices determine the subject of public deliberation: If a candidate runs a positive campaign and his rival a negative campaign, the voters learn the quality of the “focal” candidate. Thus, negative campaigns may be used either to expose the rival candidate (informative role) or to turn attention away from oneself (non-informative role). The effect of negative campaigns depends on whether it is faced with another negative campaign (cross talk) or a positive campaign (fruitful debate). We suggest that in order to ascertain the effect of negative advertising, studies should take into account the campaigns employed by both candidates. Voter beliefs about candidate quality plays a major role in campaign selection: while the incidence of negative campaigning goes down as the prior probability of a candidate being good increases, the probability of selection of the correct candidate is non-monotonic in the said prior.

AB - We present a model of political campaigning where a candidate chooses between promoting oneself (positive campaign) or attacking the rival (negative campaign). Candidates vary only by quality. Campaign choices determine the subject of public deliberation: If a candidate runs a positive campaign and his rival a negative campaign, the voters learn the quality of the “focal” candidate. Thus, negative campaigns may be used either to expose the rival candidate (informative role) or to turn attention away from oneself (non-informative role). The effect of negative campaigns depends on whether it is faced with another negative campaign (cross talk) or a positive campaign (fruitful debate). We suggest that in order to ascertain the effect of negative advertising, studies should take into account the campaigns employed by both candidates. Voter beliefs about candidate quality plays a major role in campaign selection: while the incidence of negative campaigning goes down as the prior probability of a candidate being good increases, the probability of selection of the correct candidate is non-monotonic in the said prior.

U2 - 10.1007/s00355-016-0988-6

DO - 10.1007/s00355-016-0988-6

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 697

EP - 727

JO - Social Choice and Welfare

JF - Social Choice and Welfare

SN - 0176-1714

IS - 3

ER -