Uncivil Communication and Simplistic Argumentation: Decreasing Political Trust, Increasing Persuasive Power?

Abstract

Concerns are raised repeatedly about the uncivil and simplistic way in which politicians often express their ideas. This political communication style runs counter to deliberative democratic virtues such as respectful interactions and well-justified arguments. Its use is therefore problematic from a normative point of view, yet there are indications that it is an effective communication style to persuade citizens. Two survey experimentstext and audiowere developed to investigate the effects of uncivil communication and simplistic argumentation on political trust and on persuasive power in political election debates. The results show that 1) uncivil communication lowers political trust and is slightly less convincing than civil communication, 2) simplistic argumentation, i.e. political arguments presented in ill-or nonjustified ways, does not affect political trust and is not more persuasive than well-justified argumentation, and 3) the strongest violation of social norms, i.e. a combined use of uncivil communication and simplistic argumentation, decreases both trust in the political candidate and persuasive power. Interestingly, politically cynical citizens and citizens who do not value inclusionary debates react differently to uncivil communication and simplistic argumentation: their level of trust does not decline and they are persuaded slightly more by simplistic arguments expressed in uncivil ways.

A wall of incivility? Public discourse and immigration in the 2016 U.S. Primaries

“…Third, Trump was the least likely to receive incivility despite his elevated of overall comments. While this result might seem counter-intuitive, research on uncivil rhetoric by political elites suggests that candidates are not, themselves, penalized by their base when using such strategies (Herbst, 2010;Mutz, 2015)-even though elite incivility is associated with systemic-level consequences such as reducing policy support, political trust, and out-party favorability (Goovaerts & Marien, 2020;Mutz, 2015;Otto et al, 2020). While we're not focusing on candidate incivility in this paper, the heated tone of Trump's rhetoric in the campaign has been documented by scholars as an outlier in contemporary political discourse (Mercieca, 2019;Stromer-Galley, 2019a).…”

Online Incivility in the 2020 Congressional Elections

“…While negative campaigning has been found to be more prevalent in competitive races (Banda 2021; Druckman, Kifer, and Parkin 2010; Lau and Pomper 2004), incivility, specifically, has effects which may make it unattractive for candidates in competitive seats. Uncivil content is generally found to be less persuasive (Goovaerts and Marien 2020) and ultimately lowers political trust (Mutz 2016; Mutz and Reeves 2005). As such, incivility may not be an advantageous strategy for candidates running in closely contested elections.…”

Highlighting Incivility: How the News Media’s Focus on Political Incivility Affects Political Trust and News Credibility

“…Previous research showed that politicians' use of incivility in political debates lowers citizens' political trust (Goovaerts & Marien, 2020;Mutz & Reeves, 2005;Skytte, 2020). Less is known about the impact of the news media's focus on incivility on citizens' trust attitudes.…”