An expectancy theory explanation of the effectiveness of political attack television spots: A case study

Abstract This study examined the growing use of attack television spots in modern political campaigns, employing the 1990 Wellstone Senate campaign as a case study. The interesting theoretical issue is why attack spots are effective, especially given people's initial repulsion by them. The negativity construct is most often used to explain the effectiveness of television attack spots. This construct implies that negative information stands out because of its novelty, thereby insuring attention, and deeper processing. However, the logic of negativity points to diminishing effectiveness of attack commercials. Attack spots are now a fixture in contemporary campaigns. Further, they tend to rely on a standard formula and style. Thus, attack spots are anything but novel. This investigation posits expectancy theory as an alternative explanation for the effectiveness of attack spots. The Wellstone campaign was singled out in this study because it employed a unique genre of attack commercials in staging the only upset of an incumbent Senator in the 1990 elections. The spots were hard‐hitting, but they were also subtle, humorous, even self‐effacing. The paper argues that the effectiveness of the Wellstone attack spots is best explained by expectancy theory. Moreover, the Wellstone spots may have set a new standard for political advertising which will influence campaign practices in 1992 and beyond.