Negative campaigning changed the face of Georgia politics throughout the last twenty years. Due to the public policy implications and increasing frequency of negative advertising as an attack vehicle, scholars engaged in research studying different areas of negative advertising. The purpose of this research is to examine selected 2002 Georgia elections and review specific scholarly studies to determine the effects of attack advertising in the context of real campaigns. Although quantitative data such as election results enriched the research, this study is based primarily on qualitative research derived from personal interviews, newspaper sources, relevant scholarly literature, campaign materials, and advertisements. The examined elections included the Governor’s race between Roy Barnes and Sonny Perdue, the State Senate race between Doug Haines and Brian Kemp, the State Senate Primary race between Joyce Stevens and Renee Unterman, and the U.S. Senate race between Max Cleland and Saxby Chambliss. Results show that the use of negative campaigning is increasing and that the characteristics of candidates most likely to use attack advertising in Georgia campaigns are consistent in real campaigns. Findings from scholarly research demonstrate, specifically, that negative advertisements are highly effective during campaigns and seem to lead to electoral victories. Likewise, the traditional view that extreme negativity in advertisements could yield negative effects on the sponsor is disproved due to the phenomenon of the sleeper effect, which depletes any backlash to the source without diminishing the negative message. These findings create interesting positions for future candidates, the public, and the media.
[ Abstract - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - Bibliography]