Replication Data for: When Candidates Attack: Determining the Most Effective Response to Attacks in Political Debates

When a candidate is attacked by an opponent in a political debate, what is the most effective response? Previous studies find that attacking on policy issues is more effective than attacking on character issues in political debates. Prior studies explore the effectiveness of responses to attacks in advertisements and direct mail, but without a consensus. Previous research on political debates has not explored the question of the effectiveness of different styles of responses to attacks in debates. This thesis examines the effectiveness of three response strategies—acclaim, explain, and counterattack—to character-based and policy-based attacks in a primary debate setting. A survey experiment in which 3,742 respondents read transcripts of hypothetical political debates in a party primary shows that acclaim responses are the most effective at improving four key metrics—vote intent, approval, trust, and effectiveness—when responding to both policy and character attacks. Explain responses were the second-most effective, while counterattack responses were not effective. Additionally, character-based attacks are more effective than policy-based attacks. Acclaim is the most effective response because voters dislike mudslinging and prefer candidates who emphasize positive aspects about themselves, rather than negative aspects of their opponents.