There has been considerable debate about the (presumed) increased negativity of campaigns (and their effects). But why do some campaigns go negative? In this paper, I argue that using prospect theory can help us understand why (some) campaigns do so. In an on-line experimental study, respondents are confronted with hypothetical poll results. Then, they are asked for what kind of campaigning they would opt for if they were in charge of running the campaign. Perfectly in line with the original results from the Asian Disease Problem (by Kahnemann and Tversky), respondents opt for a more negative and risky strategy if they are in charge of a "losing" campaign. If in charge of a front-runner, they opt for a more "conservative", risk-averse strategy. Hence, the style of campaigns is yet another example for the applicability of prospect theory.
