In the lecture, we found that all three possible relationships below between negative political advertisements and voter turnout are theoretically plausible.

A. Negative advertisements increase voter turnout.

B. Negative advertisements decrease voter turnout.

C. Negative advertisements do not influence voter turnout.

In the lecture, we also concluded that the finding of the relationship between the exposure to negative political advertisements and the likelihood of voting based on the student’s response in POL222 in Fall 2022 (see the question above) could be consistent with…

Question

In the lecture, we found that all three possible relationships below between negative political advertisements and voter turnout are theoretically plausible.

A. Negative advertisements increase voter turnout.

B. Negative advertisements decrease voter turnout.

C. Negative advertisements do not influence voter turnout.

In the lecture, we also concluded that the finding of the relationship between the exposure to negative political advertisements and the likelihood of voting based on the student’s response in POL222 in Fall 2022 (see the question above) could be consistent with…

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The prompt discusses three theoretically plausible relationships between negative political advertisements and voter turnout and asks about what the finding could be consistent with.

Option A: 'Negative advertisements increase voter turnout.' Thinking through this, one plausible mechanism is that negative ads raise issue salience and motivate turnout among those who already care about politics or feel strongly about the issues being aired. The effect could be positive if the ad mobilizes supporters to vote to defend their preferred policy or candidate or to oppose the opponent who is portrayed negatively. On the other hand, some individuals might interpret negative ads as off-putting or manipulative, reducing motivation to participate. The plausibility here hinges on heterogeneity in the electorate and contextual factors such as ad content, source credibility, and the competitive race.

Option B: 'Negative advertisements decrease voter turnout.' Here, a countervailing effect is imagined: pervasive negativity could lead to political cynicism, trust erosion, or generalized political fatigue, causing people to disengage and abstain. This outcome aligns with theories of motivational paralysis or desensitization to political cues. Yet, it risks ignoring cases where negative information sharpens preferences or mobilizes those who dislike the other side to vote against them, so the direction of the effect can vary with audience and circumstance.

Option C: 'Negative advertisements do not influence voter turnout.' This neutral or null effect is plausible if turnout is primarily determined by stable factors (e.g., structural barriers, registration rules, habitual voting) or if the ads influence preferences but not the decision to cast a ballot, perhaps because turnout decisions are made earlier or be driven by other mobilization channels. In addition, measurement challenges could make it hard to detect any turnout impact even when individuals are exposed to negative messaging.

Putting these together, the finding could be consistent with more than one of these pathways depending on whom is exposed, when exposure occurs, and the broader political environment. The compatibility with A, B, or C is about recognizing that turnout responses to negativity are not monolithic and may vary across subpopulations, race, age, partisanship, and race dynamics, among other moderators.

If a statement claims that all three relationships are theoretically plausible, it is reflecting that the literature often allows multiple directional hypotheses and that each outcome could emerge under different conditions or sample compositions. In evaluating such a question, one should highlight that context matters for whether negative ads mobilize, depress, or do not affect turnout, and that empirical findings may show a mixture of directions across studies or even within subgroups of the same study. The overall takeaway is to appreciate that negative political advertising can have diverse and context-sensitive effects on turnout rather than prescribing a single universal outcome.

POL222H1F 2025: Introduction to Quantitative Reasoning I Week 5 Lecture Reivew Quiz

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Analysis 2 of Ellger (2024) shows that AfD in Germany, as a newly formed right-wing party, [choice] participation in localities where it was on the ballot.

Analysis 1 of Ellger (2024) shows that polarization is associated with [choice] levels of turnout in 22 parliamentary democracies across Europe.

U.S. voting statistics show that elderly citizens donate both money and time to political campaigns. In the 2012 presidential election, _ % of those over age 65 voted, while just of the _ % remainder of the voting age population cast a ballot.

In presidential elections over the last few decades, about ___ % of voting-age citizens actually turned out to cast their votes.

Why does Puerto Rico have higher voting rates than most of the United States?

Which of the three following demographic groups are more likely to vote as compared to the other three groups.

Allowing voters to register to vote on Election Day increases turnout.

Fewer than 10 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in special purpose district elections.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler