Political leaders often forgo politeness and act disrespectfully when there is a heated political argument. However, a recent study challenges the notion that incivility attracts public interest and garners advantages. Published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, the research suggests that incivility frequently results in adverse responses from the population as a whole.
The concept of incivility entails employing impolite or discourteous language, encompassing actions like resorting to name-calling, mockery, and using vulgar expressions. There is a belief among some that incorporating impertinence in politics can effectively garner people’s attention, resulting in benefits such as a broader audience and increased influence. Nevertheless, this research conducted by Matthew Feinberg and Jeremy A. Frimer disputes the notion that incivility holds significant political advantages. Instead, it delves into the prospect that impoliteness might lead to ethical condemnation and a decline in public interest.
The researchers employed various investigative techniques encompassing longitudinal and experimental methodologies. For instance, during studies 1a and 1b, the investigators scrutinized the Twitter timelines of prominent politicians like Donald Trump and Joe Biden over a specific period. They explored the correlation between the usage of uncivil language in their tweets and the subsequent day's increase in new followers.
During the second phase of the research, 1,479 individuals with varying political affiliations were enlisted by the investigators through Amazon's Mechanical Turk. These subjects were presented with either courteous or impolite remarks from political figures and asked to express their fascination in listening to further statements from each one of them.
Study 3 engaged 604 individuals who were selected through the identical platform. These participants were presented with speeches from fictitious Democratic or Republican politicians, varying in tone from respectful to disrespectful. Subsequently, the respondents expressed their level of interest in listening to further speeches, highlighting their moral assessment of each speech, and evaluated the extent to which the speech grasped their attention.
The study findings strongly indicate that incivility diminishes public interest in politicians, contradicting earlier assumptions. Notably, studies 1a and 1b demonstrated a striking decline in the rate of novel followers earned by politicians after employing unethical behavior on Twitter.
According to the findings from Study 2, participants exhibited a notably diminished interest in listening to politicians who utilized disrespectful language, irrespective of their political leanings.
Study 3 built upon the previous results by highlighting participants' heightened interest in civil political communication. Moreover, distinctions based on political affiliations emerged, with Republican participants displaying greater tolerance towards impoliteness from fictional Republican political leaders in contrast to how Democrats reacted to impolite declarations from their party members. The presence of moral disagreement towards discourtesy also played a key part in diminishing overall interest.
In conclusion, the study indicates that because society generally reacts adversely to rudeness, it is an unsuccessful political tactic. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the potential existence of alternative roles played by incivility that may counterbalance the decrease in interest. The investigators remarked that politicians might intentionally suppress interest if their uncivil rhetoric results in more significant harm to their political rivals' esteems. Furthermore, if impoliteness leads to a reduced engagement in politics overall, those currently in power, concerned about waning electorate support could gain an advantage by employing incivility as a strategy to lower voter participation.
While this study offers insights into the repercussions of incivility on the general public, it does have certain constraints that necessitate consideration. For instance, the longitudinal studies made assumptions regarding the influence of subsequent tweets on public interest. However, it remains plausible that individuals may have viewed the tweets before or after showing their interest. Furthermore, the research primarily centered on American respondents and the American political landscape. As such, future investigations should endeavor to discover the broader applicability of these findings.
The researchers recommend that politicians should adopt more civil behavior if they wish to maintain influence. However, it's essential to explore further whether impoliteness declines interest in the specific uncivil politician or the party they represent as a whole. Future research should delve into the influence of incivility on public interest and explore related questions in this context.
Read next: Facebook, YouTube and Whatsapp; Global social networks ranked by number of users 2023
The concept of incivility entails employing impolite or discourteous language, encompassing actions like resorting to name-calling, mockery, and using vulgar expressions. There is a belief among some that incorporating impertinence in politics can effectively garner people’s attention, resulting in benefits such as a broader audience and increased influence. Nevertheless, this research conducted by Matthew Feinberg and Jeremy A. Frimer disputes the notion that incivility holds significant political advantages. Instead, it delves into the prospect that impoliteness might lead to ethical condemnation and a decline in public interest.
The researchers employed various investigative techniques encompassing longitudinal and experimental methodologies. For instance, during studies 1a and 1b, the investigators scrutinized the Twitter timelines of prominent politicians like Donald Trump and Joe Biden over a specific period. They explored the correlation between the usage of uncivil language in their tweets and the subsequent day's increase in new followers.
During the second phase of the research, 1,479 individuals with varying political affiliations were enlisted by the investigators through Amazon's Mechanical Turk. These subjects were presented with either courteous or impolite remarks from political figures and asked to express their fascination in listening to further statements from each one of them.
Study 3 engaged 604 individuals who were selected through the identical platform. These participants were presented with speeches from fictitious Democratic or Republican politicians, varying in tone from respectful to disrespectful. Subsequently, the respondents expressed their level of interest in listening to further speeches, highlighting their moral assessment of each speech, and evaluated the extent to which the speech grasped their attention.
The study findings strongly indicate that incivility diminishes public interest in politicians, contradicting earlier assumptions. Notably, studies 1a and 1b demonstrated a striking decline in the rate of novel followers earned by politicians after employing unethical behavior on Twitter.
According to the findings from Study 2, participants exhibited a notably diminished interest in listening to politicians who utilized disrespectful language, irrespective of their political leanings.
Study 3 built upon the previous results by highlighting participants' heightened interest in civil political communication. Moreover, distinctions based on political affiliations emerged, with Republican participants displaying greater tolerance towards impoliteness from fictional Republican political leaders in contrast to how Democrats reacted to impolite declarations from their party members. The presence of moral disagreement towards discourtesy also played a key part in diminishing overall interest.
In conclusion, the study indicates that because society generally reacts adversely to rudeness, it is an unsuccessful political tactic. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the potential existence of alternative roles played by incivility that may counterbalance the decrease in interest. The investigators remarked that politicians might intentionally suppress interest if their uncivil rhetoric results in more significant harm to their political rivals' esteems. Furthermore, if impoliteness leads to a reduced engagement in politics overall, those currently in power, concerned about waning electorate support could gain an advantage by employing incivility as a strategy to lower voter participation.
While this study offers insights into the repercussions of incivility on the general public, it does have certain constraints that necessitate consideration. For instance, the longitudinal studies made assumptions regarding the influence of subsequent tweets on public interest. However, it remains plausible that individuals may have viewed the tweets before or after showing their interest. Furthermore, the research primarily centered on American respondents and the American political landscape. As such, future investigations should endeavor to discover the broader applicability of these findings.
The researchers recommend that politicians should adopt more civil behavior if they wish to maintain influence. However, it's essential to explore further whether impoliteness declines interest in the specific uncivil politician or the party they represent as a whole. Future research should delve into the influence of incivility on public interest and explore related questions in this context.
Read next: Facebook, YouTube and Whatsapp; Global social networks ranked by number of users 2023
