IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v10y2022i4p247-260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Partisanship Matters: A Panel Study on the Democratic Outcomes of Perceived Dirty Campaigning

Author

Listed:
  • Franz Reiter

    (Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Austria)

  • Jörg Matthes

    (Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Uncivil campaigning and deceitful campaign techniques are increasingly relevant phenomena in politics. However, it remains unclear how they share an underlying component and how partisanship can influence their associations with democratic outcomes. We introduce the concept of dirty campaigning, which is situated at the intersection of research on negative campaigning and political scandals. Dirty campaigning involves violations of social norms and liberal‐democratic values between elite political actors in terms of style and practices, such as uncivil campaigning and deceitful campaign techniques. In a two‐wave panel study ( N = 634) during the 2021 German federal election campaign, we investigate the associations of perceived dirty campaigning by the least and most favorite party with distrust in politicians, trust in democracy, attitudes toward dirty campaigning regulation, as well as perceived harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy. We find that perceived dirty campaigning by the least favorite party increases perceptions of harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy over time. In contrast, perceived dirty campaigning by the most favorite party decreases perceptions of harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy as well as attitudes toward dirty campaigning regulation over time. Perceptions of harmful consequences of dirty campaigning for democracy increase distrust in politicians over time and vice versa. Our findings suggest that the outcomes of dirty campaigning can depend on partisanship and can have important implications for the quality of democracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Franz Reiter & Jörg Matthes, 2022. "How Partisanship Matters: A Panel Study on the Democratic Outcomes of Perceived Dirty Campaigning," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 247-260.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v10:y:2022:i:4:p:247-260
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i4.5672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/5672
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v10i4.5672?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v10:y:2022:i:4:p:247-260. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.