Underdogs Use Facebook Attacks — But Only When Races Aren't Competitive

What the Study Asks

Zachary Auter and Jeffrey A. Fine investigate when and why political candidates use negative messages on Facebook. The authors focus on two features of electoral contests: how competitive a race is, and a candidate's position in the race relative to her opponent (leading or trailing). The study asks how those factors shape the decision to post attacks online and whether the targets are policy-oriented or personal.

Data and Methods

The analysis uses a content-coded dataset of nearly 15,000 Facebook posts made by candidates. Each post was coded for tone (positive or negative), and the authors estimate statistical models that link negativity to measures of race competitiveness and candidate standing. They also estimate separate models that distinguish policy (issue) attacks from personal attacks to see whether drivers differ by attack type.

Key Findings

• Competitive races raise negativity overall: when contests are close, both candidates increase the share of negative Facebook posts.
• In less competitive contests, negativity becomes an underdog tactic: candidates who trail their opponent are much more likely to adopt negative messaging, suggesting a desperation strategy by challengers in lopsided races.
• Attack type varies by context: trailing candidates are more likely to use issue- or policy-focused attacks, while close contests are more associated with personal attacks between candidates.

Why It Matters

These results show that the electoral context and a candidate's standing shape not just whether campaigns go negative on social media but also what kind of attacks they deploy. Understanding that underdogs resort to negativity as a strategic response in non-competitive races — and that personal attacks proliferate in tight contests — helps explain variation in campaign tone on platforms like Facebook and informs debates about the effects of social media on electoral discourse.