Civility in political discourse is often thought to be necessary for deliberation and a healthy democracy. However, incivility is on the rise in political discourse in the United States—even from members of Congress—suggesting that political incivility may in fact be a tool to be used strategically. When and why, then, do members of Congress use incivility in their rhetoric? We develop and test expectations for the usage of political incivility by members of Congress on Twitter, using every tweet sent by a member of Congress from 2009–2020 coded for the presence of uncivil rhetoric via a novel application of transformer models for natural language processing. We find that more ideologically extreme members, those in safer electoral situations, and those who are in a position of political opposition are more likely to use incivility in their tweets, and that uncivil tweets increase engagement with members’ messages.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12−22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS.SimonA.ValentinoN. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?American Political Science Review, 88(4), 829−838. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082710
4.
BailC. A.ArgyleL. P.BrownT. W.BumpusJ. P.ChenH.HunzakerM. B. F.LeeJ.MannM.MerhoutF.VolfovskyA.FallinH.JaeminL.MarcusM.FriedolinM.AlexanderV. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polar- ization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216−9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
5.
BallardA. OCurryM. J. (2021). Minority party capacity in congress (pp. 1−18). Amer- ican Political Science Review.
6.
BallardA. O.RyanD. T.SpencerD.HeseltineM.John-SonM. (2022). Dynamics of polarizing rhetoric in congressional tweets. Legislative Studies Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12374
7.
BisgaardM.SlothuusR. (2018). Partisan elites as culprits? How party cues shape partisan perceptual gaps. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 456−469. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12349
8.
BradyD. W.HanH.PopeJ. C. (2007). Primary elections and candidate ideology: Out of step with the primary electorate?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 79−105. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298007x201994
9.
BurgerW. E. (1975). The necessity for civility. Litigation, 1(1), 8.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polariza- tion affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57−79. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000500
13.
GervaisB. T.WilsonW. C. (2017). New media for the new electorate? Con- gressional outreach to Latinos on Twitter. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(2), 305−323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1358186
14.
GrossJ. H.JohnsonK. T. (2016). Twitter taunts and tirades: Negative cam- paigning in the age of Trump. PS: Political Science and Politics, 49(4), 748−754. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096516001700
15.
HallA. B.SnyderM. J.,Jr. (2015). Candidate ideology and electoral success. p Manuscript. Stanford University.
16.
HarteveldE.WagnerM. (2021). Does affective polarization increase turnout? Evidence from Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. Unpublished manuscript.
17.
HerbstS. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Temple University Press.
18.
HiranoS.SnyderM. J.Jr. (2014). Primary elections and the quality of elected officials. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9(4), 473−500. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00013096
19.
HongS.ChoiH.KimT. K. (2019). Why do politicians tweet? Extrem- ists, underdogs, and opposing parties as political Tweeters. Policy and Internet, 11(3), 305−323. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.201
20.
JamiesonK. H.VolinskyA.WeitzI.KenskiK. (2017). The political uses and abuses of civility and incivility. The Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 205−218). Oxford University Press.
21.
KimY.KimY. (2019). Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 219−227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.022
22.
LazarusJ.ThorntonJ. R. (2020). Bully pulpit? Twitter users’ engagement with president Trump’s tweets. Social Science Computer Review, 39(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320946578
23.
LiuY.OttM.GoyalN.DuJ.JoshiM.ChenD.LevyO.LewisM.ZettlemoyerL.VeselinS. (2019). RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv:1907.11692.
24.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
MolyneuxL.McGregorS. C. (2021). Legitimating a platform: Evidence of journalists’ role in transferring authority to Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 1–19.
27.
MutzD. C. (2016). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton University Press.
28.
NguyenD. Q.VuT.Tuan NguyenA. (2020). BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English tweets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10200.
29.
NyhanB.McGheeE.SidesJ.MasketS.GreeneS. (2012). One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40(5), 844−879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x11433768
30.
OstD. (2004). Politics as the mobilization of anger: Emotions in movements and in power. European Journal of Social Theory, 7(2), 229−244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431004041753
31.
PetersonD. A. M.DjupeP. A. (2005). When primary campaigns go negative: The determinants of campaign negativity. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 45−54. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800104
32.
ReevesA.RogowskiJ. C. (2015). Public opinion toward presidential power. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 742−759. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12227
33.
SlothuusR.BisgaardM. (2021). How political parties shape public opinion in the real world. American Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 896−911. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12550
34.
SuL. Yi.-F.XenosM. A.RoseK. M.WirzC.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD. (2018). Uncivil and personal? Comparing patterns of incivility in comments on the Facebook pages of news outlets. New Media and Society, 20(10), 3678−3699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818757205
35.
SundararajanM.TalyA.YanQ. (2017). Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01365.
36.
SydnorE. (2019). Disrespectful democracy: The psychology of political incivility. Columbia University Press.
37.
TetlockP. E. (2004). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of commons In: Political psychology (pp. 230−239). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-13
38.
TheocharisY.BarberáP.FazekasZ.Adrian PopaS. (2020). The dynamics of political incivility on Twitter. Sage Open, 10(2), 2158244020919447. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919447
39.
TheocharisY.BarberáP.FazekasZ.PopaS. A.ParnetO. (2016). A bad workman blames his tweets: The consequences of citizens’ uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 1007−1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12259
40.
TrombleR. (2018). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on Twitter. New Media and Society, 20(2), 676−697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816669158
WangR. TTuckerD. P. (2020). How partisanship influences what congress says online and how they say it. American Politics Research, 49(1). 1532673X20939498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20939498
ZeitzoffT. (2020). The nasty style: Why politicians use violent rhetoric.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
