Incivility in U.S. political debates hurts democracy. But uncivil language is more entertaining, exciting, and arousing than civil language. Given the contradictory relationship between people's general aversion and the media attention to popularized incivility, insight can be gained through examining politicians’ language intensity, a relatively common yet scarcely explored phenomenon in political debates. In a preregistered multiple-message experimental design with an original stimulus filmed for this study, participants (n = 538 registered U.S. voters) watch a debate featuring a real politician (with a real journalist moderating the debate). Participants are randomly assigned to high- or low-intensity language conditions. Inspired by language expectancy theory (LET), a multiple-mediation model is tested, whereby language intensity decreases a politician's trustworthiness through intense language being more uncivil than low-intensity language which is associated with voters’ normative expectancies. Discussion concerns the practical implications for politicians’ debate strategy and theoretical ramifications of LET via communication accommodation theory.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
2.
BarnumP. T. (1880/2008). The art of money getting: Golden rules for making money. The Floating Press.
3.
BenoitW. L.HansenG. J.VerserR. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000179133
4.
BormannM.TranowU.VoweG.ZiegeleM. (2022). Incivility as a violation of communication norms—A typology based on normative expectations toward political communication. Communication Theory, 32(3), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtab018
BradacJ. J.BowersJ. W.CourtrightJ. A. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00639.x
7.
BrooksD. J.GeerJ. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x
8.
BurgoonM.DenningV. P.RobertsL. (2002). Language expectancy theory. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 117–136). Sage.
9.
BurgoonM.JonesS. B.StewartD. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory of persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language intensity. Human Communication Research, 1(3), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00271.x
10.
BurgoonM.MillerG. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In GilesH.St. ClairR. (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language (pp. 199–229). Lawrence Erlbaum.
CavazzaN.GuidettiM. (2014). Swearing in political discourse: Why vulgarity works. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(5), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14533198
13.
ClementsonD. E.Pascual-FerráP.BeattyM. J. (2016a). How language can influence political marketing strategy and a candidate’s image: Effect of presidential candidates’ language intensity and experience on college students’ ratings of source credibility. Journal of Political Marketing, 15(4), 388–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.959689
14.
ClementsonD. E.Pascual-FerráP.BeattyM. J. (2016b). When does a presidential candidate seem presidential and trustworthy? Campaign messages through the lens of language expectancy theory. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 592–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12299
15.
ClintonH. R. (2017). What happened. Simon & Schuster.
16.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
17.
DaileyW. O.HinckE. A.HinckS. S. (2008). Politeness in presidential debates: Shaping political face in campaign debates from 1960 to 2004. Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
DragojevicM.GasiorekJ.GilesH. (2016). Accommodative strategies as core of the theory. In GilesH. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 36–55). Cambridge University Press.
19.
GilesH. (2016b). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal and social identities in context. Cambridge University Press.
20.
GilesH. (2016a). Communication accommodation theory. In JensenK. B.CraigR. T. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 260–266). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic006.
21.
GilesH.SmithP. M. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In GilesH.St. ClairR. (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45–65). Blackwell.
22.
GoovaertsI. (2023). Highlighting incivility: How the news media’s focus on political incivility affects political trust and news credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221084608
23.
GoovaertsI.MarienS. (2020). Uncivil communication and simplistic argumentation: Decreasing political trust, increasing persuasive power?Political Communication, 37(6), 768–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1753868
24.
GoovaertsI.TurkenburgE. (2023). How contextual features shape incivility over time: An analysis of the evolution and determinants of political incivility in televised election debates (1985–2019). Communication Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221135694
25.
GottfriedJ. A.HardyB. W.HolbertR. L.WinnegK. M.JamiesonK. H. (2017). The changing nature of political debate consumption: Social media, multitasking, and knowledge acquisition. Political Communication, 34(2), 172–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1154120
26.
GregoryS. W.Jr.GallagherT. J. (2002). Spectral analysis of candidates’ nonverbal vocal communication: Predicting U.S. presidential election outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(3), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090125
27.
HamiltonM. A. (2015). Language intensity as an expression of power in political messages. In SchulzeR.PishwaH. (Eds.), The exercise of power in communication (pp. 233–265). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137478382_10.
28.
HamiltonM. A.HunterJ. E. (1998). The effect of language intensity on receiver evaluations of message, source, and topic. In AllenM.PreissW. R. (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 99–138). Hampton Press. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1894.9925.
29.
HamiltonM. A.HunterJ. E.BurgoonM. (1990). An empirical test of an axiomatic model of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(4), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9094002
30.
HamiltonM. A.StewartB. L. (1993). Extending an information processing model of language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369882
31.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
32.
HopmannD. N.VliegenthartR.MaierJ. (2018). The effects of tone, focus, and incivility in election debates. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 28(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1394310
33.
JenningsF. J.BramlettJ. C.KenskiK.VillanuevaI. I. (2021). Presidential debate learning as a gateway to opinion articulation, communication intentions, and information seeking. Argumentation and Advocacy, 57(3–4), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949543
KeeterS. (2016). Putting post-debate ‘flash polls’ into perspective. Pew Research Center. http://pewrsr.ch/2dYrUv3
36.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. A. (2020). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933
37.
KenskiK.HardyB. W.JamiesonK. H. (2010). The Obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the 2008 election. Oxford University Press.
38.
LiangH.ZhangX. (2021). Partisan bias of perceived incivility and its political consequences: Evidence from survey experiments in Hong Kong. Journal of Communication, 71(3), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab008
39.
LiebrechtC.HustinxL.van MulkenM. (2019). The relative power of negativity: The influence of language intensity on perceived strength. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(2), 170–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18808562
40.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
MutzD. C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton University Press.
43.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. The American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
44.
OrrC. J.BurkinsK. E. (1976). The endorsement of evasive leaders: An exploratory study. Communication Studies, 27(3), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510977609367898
45.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media and Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
46.
PeerE.RothschildD.GordonA.EverndenZ.DamerE. (2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 1643–1662. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3
47.
Pew Research Center (2022). As partisan hostility grows, signs of frustration with the two-arty system. https://pewrsr.ch/3Qud1j1
48.
PfauM. (1987). The influence of intraparty political debates on candidate preference. Communication Research, 14(6), 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365087014006004
49.
RomeroD. M.SwaabR. I.UzziB.GalinskyA. D. (2015). Mimicry is presidential: Linguistic style matching in presidential debates and improved polling numbers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(10), 1311–1319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215591168
SchoemannA. M.BoultonA. J.ShortS. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
55.
ThakerarJ. N.GilesH.ChesireJ. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In FraserC.SchererK. R. (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205–255). Cambridge University Press.
56.
Van’t RietJ.Van StekelenburgA. (2022). The effects of political incivility on political trust and political participation: A meta-analysis of experimental research. Human Communication Research, 48(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqab022
