Indianapolis – A new analysis by a marketing professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business explains why political campaigns continue to invest heavily in attack ads, even after the polls close. The study focuses on the recent Secretary of State race between Republican Max Engling and Democrat Beau Bayh, a contest that saw millions of dollars poured into television and digital spots.
Why Attack Ads Stick
Kristina Harrison, a clinical assistant professor of marketing, says the key is repetition. “Just keep being exposed to something over and over and over again, even if it’s something that you don’t totally agree with,” Harrison explained. “You start to think, well, maybe there’s something true to this.”
According to Harrison, voters may not retain the exact details of an accusation, but they remember the emotional tone of the ad. The phenomenon she calls “moral disgust” can cause people to judge a candidate more harshly, regardless of whether the specific claim is accurate.
Mixed Effects on Voter Choices
The research notes a paradox: while attack ads can be effective at shaping perceptions, they also risk alienating voters. Some respondents admitted that after seeing a barrage of negative ads, they felt distrust toward both candidates. “They work, but we also don’t like them either,” Harrison said. “It’s a discrepancy between something that you might not like, the fact we might actually hate the fact, but it might be effective in changing how we vote.”
For undecided voters, repeated negative messaging can tip the balance. The study found that individuals who had not yet formed a firm opinion were more likely to be swayed after multiple exposures to attack ads, suggesting that campaigns see these ads as a tool for nudging the fence‑sitters.
Implications for Future Campaigns
Harrison’s findings reinforce why political operatives continue to allocate substantial resources to negative advertising, even in a post‑election environment where the immediate outcome is already decided. The emotional residue left by these ads can influence public discourse, affect future fundraising, and shape the narrative for upcoming races.
Both Engling and Bayh’s campaigns spent heavily on television, radio, and online platforms, reflecting a broader national trend of high‑budget attack advertising. While the Indiana Secretary of State race is now concluded, the study suggests that the impact of such ads will linger, potentially affecting voter sentiment in upcoming primaries and general elections.
What Voters Can Do
Harrison advises voters to be mindful of the emotional cues in political advertising. “Understanding that repeated exposure can create a feeling of truth, even when the facts are fuzzy, helps voters critically evaluate what they see,” she said. By recognizing the strategy behind attack ads, citizens can make more informed decisions at the ballot box.
As Indiana moves forward toward the next election cycle, the research underscores the importance of media literacy and the need for voters to look beyond the emotional charge of campaign messaging.
Original reporting: 93.1 WIBC (Indianapolis) — read the source article.
