So, on one hand, authors like Paul Martin assert that negative ads imply certain factors that accordingly increase voter mobilization, and thus create a greater voter turnout. He states that three factors, stimulation of republican citizenship duty, anxiety regarding the candidates, and perception of an increased tightness in the race, have shown causation in making people vote.
On the other hand, other research groups such as Coyle, Denton, Ognianova, and Thorson explain that negative campaign ads have a direct link to negative feelings on political races. Correspondingly, individuals that have such feelings have increased senses of political cynicism and decreased feelings of political efficacy.
Considering what was said in the first paragraph, we cannot be surprised by the discrepancies in different researchers' data. What is most important is to figure out your own individualized response to negative ads, and make sure that you are not being guided purely by the effects of media so that in turn, you can make the best voting decision for yourself, your family, your community, and your country.
The image above demonstrates a negative campaign ad. Now, one could easily see how seeing such an ad would turn away a voter from voting. However, if you do not do any actual research on Chris Christie, how would you truly know his agenda, or if he does indeed have "one set of rules for himself, another for everyone else."
Below is an interesting link from Debate.org, a website that allows users to vote and comment on an issue. The specific issue is whether or not campaign ads should be banned. It is an interesting debate with a lot of good insight from average citizens. I recommend reading a few high-rated comments from each side for fun and to see what people have to say.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-negative-advertising-in-political-campaigns-be-banned
