While it may be difficult to predict how this Ontario election will unfold, one thing is almost certain: voters can expect to be fed a steady diet of negative ads from one or more of the political parties, the kind of mean-spirited and gratuitous attacks intended to give one party an edge over another. But this is a problem. Rather than providing a decisive advantage on election day, those ads may have the unintended consequence of breeding greater cynicism toward politicians, lowering voting turn out, spreading misinformation in the electorate and perpetuating the kind of horse-race journalism that places more attention on poll results and campaign strategy than on the future of health care or the education of our children.

Parties usually resort to negative ads in the hope of gaining a short term-electoral advantage. But a longer look at the research on the effects of negative messages on consumer behaviour might give parties a reason for pause.

The recent book by the Star’s own Susan Delacourt, Shopping for Votes, suggests that the increasing use of consumer advertising techniques over the last several decades may have convinced voters to view politics as just one more shopping experience. That certainly seems true. The evidence, however, suggests the trouble may run deeper. The cynicism negative ads engender about politicians may also seep into our democratic institutions and into our politics, generally, leading us to lose faith altogether in the democratic process.

This line of thought is not as far-fetched as it might first appear. Research conducted on consumers has shown that repeated exposure to negative and misleading advertising can significantly and permanently diminish trust — not just in the subject of an attack but also in the entire category, including the company who did the attacking.

For example, if one phone company throws mud at another in an effort to shine up its own image, consumers can begin to distrust the entire telephone industry. Product advertisers have long learned that mud-slinging might help them win a short-term battle but at the cost of the war.

The reasons for this are complex but can be understood simply. Our brains appear to be hard-wired to pay close attention to negative experiences. Negative experiences can permanently affect the way we make decisions. If, for example, a family member is poisoned by a berry, we never forget it and avoid going anywhere near that plant again. But the experience may also make us more wary of berries, generally.

Now apply this idea to politics: if we are burned by one politician, that would be bad enough. But imagine if all we hear about our politicians, day in and day out, is a stream of character attacks, accusations and insinuations? It’s no wonder we back away slowly and head for the exits.

And we are heading for the exits. Less than 50 per cent of eligible voters bothered to turn up to vote in the last provincial election. Interest may perk up slightly from election to election due to some particular, pressing concern – but the general trend is towards ever-lower levels of voter turnout.

This problem is particularly acute among younger voters. If you are under 30, chances are you will not vote in this or any other election. And why would you? For your entire existence, campaigns have become steadily more likely to engender disgust than they have to inspire civic pride.

The mud that politicians throw at one another may have a more corrosive and sinister effect than the short-term effects that have been attributed to it. The negativity we see during election campaigns, most clearly evident in negative ads, may help explain why voter turnout has so precipitously declined and why trust in politicians is at an all-time low. In the 1950s, politicians were held in relatively high esteem. Today, they rank at the lower end of the scale, somewhere in the neighbourhood of your average used car salesman. Decades of negativity have left their mark and voters are opting out instead of participating.

While all three parties prepare their advertising strategies for the election, they would be wise to think about the long term consequences negative campaigns have on politics and our political institutions. At this rate, it won’t be long before we all give up on the ballot and, instead, head for the mall.

Jonathan Rose is an associate professor of political studies at Queen’s University. Tim Abray-Nyman is a PhD candidate in political studies at Queen’s.