They’ve turned into verbal cage matches where name-calling, trash talk, owning each other after destroying each other, and cheap shots are just another day at the office.
But here’s the million-dollar question: does all this incivility actually work to change anyone’s mind or influence?
Come on, you little snowflake, let’s dive into some research to see when acting the fool might actually pay off.
Title: “Uncivil Yet Persuasive? Testing the Persuasiveness of Political Incivility and the Moderating Role of Populist Attitudes and Personality Traits”
Link: Read the study here
Peer Review Status: Yes
Citation:
Vargiu, C., Nai, A., & Valli, C. (2024). Uncivil yet persuasive? Testing the persuasiveness of political incivility and the moderating role of populist attitudes and personality traits. Political Psychology, 45(6), 1157–1176.
Introduction
Political incivility—rude and disrespectful rhetoric—has become a hallmark of populist campaigns.
This study by Vargiu and colleagues investigates whether (and under what conditions) such tactics are effective in persuasion or influence and whether personality traits or populist attitudes make people more receptive to this behavior.
Current Understanding of Research (Before This Study)
Prior to this research, incivility in political communication was widely assumed to reduce a message’s effectiveness. Studies have shown that:
-
-
- Negative Reactions to Incivility: People tend to view uncivil rhetoric as unprofessional and damaging to a candidate’s credibility.
- Limited Persuasion: Civility is often believed to enhance a message’s appeal, making audiences more likely to engage with the content.
- Partisan Bias: Some evidence suggests people are more forgiving of incivility when it comes from their own political group, although this finding has been inconsistent.
-
This new study seeks to clarify whether these assumptions hold true across different cultures and personality types.
Methodology
The researchers conducted two experimental studies:
-
-
- Switzerland Study: 1,340 participants.
- United States Study: 1,820 participants.
-
Design: A 2×2 factorial experiment exposed participants to persuasive messages about controversial topics (e.g., gender-related policies). Messages were framed as either:
-
-
- Civil or Uncivil: Respectful versus disrespectful language.
- Congruent or Incongruent: Aligning with or opposing participants’ initial beliefs.
-
Independent Variable: Civility of the message.
Dependent Variable: Change in opinion, measured on a scale from -10 (maximum backfire) to +10 (full persuasion).
Moderators: Populist attitudes and personality traits, including psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism.
Participants’ opinions were measured before and after exposure to determine how persuasive each message was.
Results and Findings
General Impact of Incivility
-
-
- Incivility Doesn’t Always Backfire: Across both countries, uncivil and civil messages were equally persuasive on average. This challenges the assumption that incivility universally harms credibility.
- Message Congruence Matters: In Switzerland, uncivil messages aligned with participants’ beliefs were slightly less persuasive than civil ones. However, incongruent messages (those challenging beliefs) were more persuasive, regardless of civility.
-
Cultural Differences
-
-
- In the U.S., populist attitudes significantly increased the persuasiveness of uncivil messages, especially those that were incongruent with prior beliefs.
- In Switzerland, where political discourse is more consensus-driven, uncivil messages were less influential overall.
-
Role of Personality Traits
-
-
- Populist Attitudes: U.S. participants with stronger populist leanings were more likely to find uncivil messages persuasive.
- Dark Traits: People with higher levels of psychopathy and Machiavellianism responded more positively to uncivil messages, particularly when the messages contradicted their initial views.
-
Critiques of the Research or Additional Areas of Study
While groundbreaking, the study has some limitations:
- Cultural Specificity: Results varied between Switzerland and the U.S., limiting generalizability to other countries or political systems.
- Definition of Incivility: The study operationalized incivility as explicit disrespect or vulgarity, which may not capture subtler forms like sarcasm or passive aggression.
- Medium of Communication: The research used text-based platforms like forums and tweets, which may not reflect how incivility operates in live debates or multimedia formats. Step away from the keyboard and say it to my face!
Future research could explore:
- Broader definitions of incivility and their impact.
- Different communication channels (e.g., televised debates, social media videos).
- How incivility interacts with audience demographics beyond personality traits.
- How incivility interacts with source credibility.
Conclusion
As my momma always said: “Jerks of a feather always flock together!”. Okay, she has never said this, but she did warn me to take care of who I surround myself with.
Incivility isn’t universally persuasive, but it resonates with certain audiences, particularly individuals with populist attitudes or darker personality traits.
This suggests that while uncivil rhetoric can be a risky strategy, it may yield rewards in specific cultural and psychological contexts.
For political strategists, this research highlights the importance of tailoring communication styles to the audience.
For the rest of us, it raises an uncomfortable question: Are we more influenced by insults than we’d like to admit?
Clearly, the answer for some is “damn right, jerkface!”
