Gender, perceptions of benefits and costs, and negative campaigning. Evidence from German candidate surveys

Many studies have analyzed whether there are differences in the use of negative campaigning of men and women candidates. However, empirical evidence for a gender-specific use of attacks is inconclusive. We argue that we are not yet able to fully understand the conditions under which men and women candidates go negative on their political opponents, as the costs and benefits have not yet been empirically measured. Based on candidate surveys from Germany, we use a moderated mediation model to show that i. Women report lower levels of attack behavior than men, ii. Women show a less favorable balance of benefits and costs of negative campaigning, and iii. The perceived benefit-cost balance influences the decision to go negative. However, iv. This effect is moderated by gender; men only attack more often than women when the perceived costs are low and the expected benefits are high.