Why you might consider going negative when giving professional advice
“Some citizens see their role as that of supporters and others see their role as that of referees.”
Hello my dear Bold Behaviourists. 👋🏽
Have you had to get people to take action based on negative news this week?
Maybe compliance, strategic planning, or poor performance reviews.
It's always tough to know if going negative is the right way to play it, or if there should be a positive spin.
It's General Election day in the U.K. tomorrow, and with no one knowing about going negative more than politicians, I thought I'd share with you a study on negativity came to mind.
Mud. Mud everywhere.
With every election comes a heap of money spend on negative ads, PR and spin.
Despite public disdain for this mudslinging, it keeps happening.
Ever wondered why?
Even more crucially, does it actually work?
Well, funnily enough, some social scientists asked the same thing.
So today I’m going to tell you why going negative WORKS, and the effectiveness of negative campaigning.
This isn't just about politics; it's a vital lesson for how to handle negative news at work.
The results are quite surprising.
How negativity actually impacts people
I always get frustrated when I don't see a campaign discussing values and benefits. It gets a bit schoolyard like.
Then I read this fascinating study called "Going Negative" by researchers Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar.
They dug into why political campaigns use so much negative advertising, even though it seems to turn so many people off... including me!
They set up these experiments where participants watched different political ads while chilling in a setup like a living room, pretty much how we watch TV at home.
They showed a mix of ads—some really bashing opponents, and others more upbeat and positive about the candidate's own policies.
Then, they measured everything from the participants' emotional reactions to how well they remembered the ads.
Turns out, the negative ads stuck with people longer and triggered stronger emotional responses.
But here’s the rub: while these ads grab attention, they also depressed voter turnout.
People get so turned off by the negativity that some just tune out from voting altogether. So, it's not just me (though I do always vote).
They even looked at real Senate campaigns from '92 and found that states bombarded with these negative ads had lower voter turnout.
The more the candidates attacked each other, the less people wanted to engage with the election process at all.
The researchers suggest that this kind of negative campaigning not only polarises the electorate but actually shrinks it by turning potential voters into apathetics.
Wild.
It makes you think about the bigger picture, like how this strategy, while effective in some ways, might be damaging public trust and interest in politics.
Makes me wonder about the long-term effects of all this negativity we see in media, not just in politics but in other areas too.
Striking Findings:
Memorability of Negative Information:
Negative ads had a strikingly higher recall rate. Ansolabehere and Iyengar noted, “Participants were able to recall nearly 75% of the negative ad content compared to only about 55% of the content from positive ads.”
Emotional Response: The negative ads evoked stronger emotional responses.
Participants’ feedback included statements such as, “I felt really uneasy watching the negative ads,” highlighting the emotional impact these ads had.
Effect on Voter Turnout Intentions:
While negative ads were more memorable, they also influenced some participants' desire to avoid the polls altogether.
Ansolabehere and Iyengar wrote, “There’s evidence here that negative campaigning could be killing the enthusiasm of the electorate.”
💡 So if you have to deliver a lot of negative/compliance-based news, think about how this can impact your long-term reputation and relationships.
Your BOLD challenge for the week 👩🔬
Get your lab coats on! Let’s put theory into practice.
For you gentle reader, (yes, I’ve been on a Bridgerton binge) I would like you to put these questions into action.
Do reply and let me know your thoughts on todays pieces, and the questions below.
1. Think about how you communicate threats. How can you inform without causing unnecessary alarm?
2. When you're positioning your latest innovation against the competition, how can you highlight its advantages without crossing into negative territory that might reflect poorly on your brand?
3. You often have to deliver news about risks or legal requirements. How can you do this effectively without making clients feel overwhelmed or defensive?
The lesson here highlights a key point for you at work too.
Just like those political campaigns, using negative tactics can grab people’s attention fast and might work for a while.
But, if that’s all you’re using, even when well-intentioned, it can backfire—people or customers get tired of the negativity, trust starts to erode, and their engagement drops off.
You’ve got to mix tough stuff with positive to avoid people checking out and associating you with negatives.
Keep things competitive but also create an environment where people feel good, supported, and motivated.
That’s how you build something that lasts.
Go. Be Bold. Change minds.
Alex
P.S. DRUM ROLL please for last week's results on anticipation...
Which do you think won?
A: 004 The Science Behind Waiting: How it Might Just Make This Email Better
or...
B: 004 The Secret Benefit of Anticipation: Is This Newsletter Better Because You Waited?
Here are the two titles that got tested:
The quickest was B! Again.
However, BOTH got the exact same amount of opens over time of 60%.
Should I keep the title experiments going? Email me back a Y/N
