Race, Gender, and the Politics of Incivility: How Identity Moderates Perceptions of Uncivil Discourse

Abstract

Many worry that uncivil discourse can undermine democratic processes. Yet, what exactly does it mean for discourse to be uncivil? I argue that there is systematic variation in perceptions of incivility based on the identity of those targeted by uncivil speech. Specifically, I show—via a conjoint survey experiment—that White Americans are less likely to view statements directed at Black Americans as uncivil but more likely to perceive incivility when the target is a woman or a co-partisan. These results suggest an identity-laden aspect of incivility such that it is acceptable to treat Black Americans with less civility but less acceptable to do so for women and co-partisans. The results have implications for how we assess discourse and how that discourse affects the public.

Emotional Markers of Disrespect: A Fourth Dimension of Perceived Political Incivility?

“…This line of research, based on focus groups and laboratory and survey experiments, is conducted by many scholars of incivility and has produced important findings including those discussed in this paper's introduction (e.g., Bormann, 2022;Bormann, Tranow et al, 2022;Conway & Stryker, 2021;K. L. Fridkin & Kenney, 2011;Frimer & Skitka, 2020;Gervais, 2016;Gubitz, 2022;Kenski et al, 2020;Liang & Zhang, 2021;Massaro & Stryker, 2012;Muddiman, 2017Muddiman, , 2019Mutz, 2015;Mutz & Reeves, 2005;Stryker et al, 2023;Sydnor, 2019). Though it is beyond the scope of the research we report here, future research investigating a negative emotionality dimension of political incivility should contain items distinguishing among different types of targets and/or reasons for displaying or evoking negative emotion, including fear and anger.…”

“…communication norms are time-and place-varying (Bentivegna & Rega, 2022;Bormann, Tranow et al, 2022;Jamieson et al, 2015;Massaro & Stryker, 2012). Likewise, perceived incivility differs systematically based on characteristics of the speaker, including whether male or female, an ordinary citizen or member of the political elite, and a fellow partisan or a political opponent (Frimer & Skitka, 2020;Muddiman, 2017Muddiman, , 2019Mutz, 2015;Stryker et al, 2023); characteristics of the target, including the target's race and gender and whether a fellow partisan or political opponent (Gervais, 2016;Gubitz, 2022;Liang & Zhang, 2021); characteristics of the observer, including observer's race, gender, political partisanship, age, and personality indicators such as conflict avoidance and agreeableness (Ben-Porath, 2010;Conway & Stryker, 2021; K. L. Fridkin & Kenney, 2011;Kenski et al, 2020;Mutz & Reeves, 2005;Stryker et al, 2023); and characteristics of the speech context, including specific media platforms and political fora, and the various roles speakers, targets, and audience evaluators play in them (Bormann, 2022;Conway & Stryker, 2021;Massaro & Stryker, 2012;Sydnor, 2019). Scholarly definitions of incivility also differ and may do so in perpetuity (Jamieson et al, 2015; see also Bormann, Tranow et al, 2022;Stryker et al, 2016).…”

Evaluations and Perceptions of political incivility

“…One of the main limitations of our work is undoubtedly the failure to differentiate the media environments in which incivility episodes take place. As previous research has convincingly shown, the channel and structure of the media platform (Sydnor, 2018) as well as the roles of the actors involved influence the perception of the subjects (Bormann, 2022;Gubitz, 2022). Inviting respondents to judge the level of incivility present in a Facebook post, a TV talk-show clip or a newspaper article describing the political news could lead to different evaluations in the presence of similar content.…”

“…This different sensitivity can be interpreted by taking into account that "even within a given political culture, norms of civility may change over time as generational shifts in politics, technology, and culture are reflected in interpersonal relationship" (Flores et al, 2021, p. 24). The increased frequentation of social media by the younger generationwith its well-known traits of informality, directness and accessibility to information from the most diverse sourcescertainly represents a contextual condition that facilitates greater tolerance of expressions of incivility, as demonstrated by recent studies concerning more extreme forms of incivility such as incitement to hate (Gubitz, 2022). Finally, the education variable must be considered to identify the contribution made by the cultural level to the perception of the phenomenon.…”

“…These five types of political incivility, which collectively contribute to the definition of the concept, allow us to analyse how perceptions change across different kinds of uncivil discourse and simultaneously measure how meanings change in relation to the point of observation. In this direction, it should not be forgotten that recent studies have shown that the perception of different types of uncivil discourse is influenced by both contextual and subjective factors (Britzman & Kantack, 2022;Gubitz, 2022). And since the dividing line between what is deemed civil or uncivil changes as contexts and observers themselves vary, it even becomes "difficult to know when incivility actually exists" (Masullo Chen et al, 2019, p. 2).…”