Political advertising encourages people to engage in communication activities during election cycles. Political discussion is a stable, positive predictor of political participation. There are four types of advertisement tone:

1. Attack ads about the candidate the voter favours.
2. Attack ads about the candidate the voter opposes.
3. Advocacy ads about the candidate the voter favours.
4. Advocacy ads about the candidate the voter opposes.

The disposition and surveillance system explain affective responses to external stimuli and outcome consequences. The disposition system’s function is to monitor habits and manage on how we rely on what has previously been learned. This system is activated when a new stimulus is as expected and signals safety. It allows people to rely on habits and routines in processing information.

The surveillance system’s function is to identify novel or threatening situations and drives conscious attention to and reasoned consideration of the situations by elevating anxiety levels. This system is activated when information is novel or challenges expectations. The surveillance system results in more effortful processing and a conscious behavioural strategy that keeps people alert.

It is possible that these systems guide emotional experiences and subsequent behaviours during political ads. The affective intelligence theory states that political stimuli that challenge voters’ values and beliefs endanger symbolic worlds and produce results that are similar to more dangerous stimuli from non-political contexts.

Attack ads often employ the guilt by association strategy and use highly emotional language. Exposure to attack ads is positively related with feelings of anxiety and anger that a voter feels towards the candidate. However, attack ads can also create a boomerang effect because many people disapprove of the sponsor of attack advertising.

The black-sheep effect states that evaluations of attack ads and the sponsors of the ads are driven by a motivation to preserve a positive social identity. Therefore, when people see an in-group candidate engaging in unfavourable behaviour, this is perceived as violating group norms and threatening the positive image of the group. This leads voters to evaluate the candidate negatively. If voters do not perceive an in-group candidate’s attack message as placing group identity in danger, there is less motivation to distance themselves from the candidate. Issue-based attack ads are seen as more acceptable than personal attack ads.

Advocacy ads regarding the preferred candidate leads to quick and easy information processing and the voter’s emotions will reflect the positivity of the promotional ads.

Attacking ads regarding the opposed candidate leads to quick and easy information processing and voters are less motivated to thoroughly review the criticisms because of the congruent nature of the message. Voters will probably follow the ads and find reasons to maintain or intensify their prior attitudes. Exposure to attacking ads about the opposed candidate will strengthen the pre-existing negative attitudes towards the candidate.

Advocacy ads regarding the opposed candidate leads to anxiety but not anger for the voter. This is because anxiety requires a general or uncertain threat (i.e. the advocacy ad) and anger requires a specific attack to an individual’s goals or beliefs.

Attack ads regarding the preferred candidate are often viewed as direct attacks against the voter, which elicits negative emotions. Voters are more likely to critically assess the criticism of the attack ad. It is perceived as a direct threat to the voter’s identity, leading to anger. Generally, people favouring the candidate will dislike the sponsoring candidate more after an attack ad. However, this is not always the case. It could be that the effect of the attack ad depends on whether the attack messages are deemed legitimate.

The functional theory of emotion states that some emotions encourage active engagement in certain behaviours while other emotions motivate behavioural withdrawal (e.g. sadness) as a way to maintain individual goals and values.

Enthusiasm has motivational power. It is closely tied to the disposition system and urges voters to rely more pre-existing political preference. Feelings of enthusiasm mobilize voters to engage in the campaign in a manner that reinforces pre-existing convictions.

Anxiety in the face of a political stimuli leads people to become more vigilant in monitoring their environment and attempt to acquire relevant information beyond what they have learned from the stimuli. Feelings of anxiety enhance political interest and engagement through heightened attention to the threat and careful information processing. Feelings of anxiety loosen the hold of prior convictions. It leads people to engage in conversation in which different views and perspectives are available

Anger focuses an individual toward action against the anger-inducing stimulus. Anger is a stronger motivator than anxiety. Anger is driven by the disposition system linked to a less thorough processing of information and to actions based on ingrained habits and convictions. Anger produces more actions but fewer thoughts. Voters who feel angry are likely to seek out conversation with like-minded individuals.

Both advocacy and attack ads significantly impact citizens’ affect toward candidates. Exposure to advocacy ads about the favoured candidate was associated with a significant increase in enthusiasm about the candidate. Ads in which the favoured candidate attacks the opposing candidate lead citizens to fear both candidates. Exposure to attack ads about the opposing candidate was associated with a significant increase in the levels of anxiety toward the opposing candidate who was under attack as well as an increase in anxiety toward the favoured candidate on whose behalf the attack ads work.

Attack ads about the opposing candidate do not elicit anger. Ads from the opposing client do not elicit emotional changes in voters. Ads attacking the favoured candidate did not lead voters to recoil against the opposing candidate on whose behalf the attack ads work and did not persuade them to lessen their enthusiasm for the candidate they already support.

Feelings of enthusiasm toward the favoured candidate are not associated with a significant increase in political conversation with like-minded people. Feelings of anxiety about one’s own candidate did drive political discussion in a heterogeneous context. Anxiety about the favoured candidate leads voters to engage in political conversation with like-minded people. Feelings of anxiety about one’s own candidate motivate political discussion regardless of the discussion partners’ political preference. When people feel anxious about the opposing candidate, they seek out homogeneous political discussions. Feelings of anger toward the opposing candidate are positively related to the frequency of homogeneous political conversation although anger also leads to political conversation in heterogeneous context. Anger toward the candidate one opposes leads the voter to engage in political talk regardless of context (i.e. homogeneous or heterogeneous).

Ads where the favoured candidate advocates for oneself reinforce the enthusiasm voters already have for their own candidate. This suggests that advocacy advertising is an effective strategy for candidates to energize their electoral base. Only ads from the favoured candidate’s side impacted voter emotions.

Negative emotions have stronger behavioural consequences with respect to political discussion than positive emotions. Engaging in heterogeneous discussion is driven by anxiety about one’s candidate but not by anxiety about the opposing candidate.