We provide the first systematic investigation of trends in the incivility of American politicians on Twitter, a dominant platform for political communication in the United States. Applying a validated artificial intelligence classifier to all 1.3 million tweets made by members of Congress since 2009, we observe a 23% increase in incivility over a decade on Twitter. Further analyses suggest that the rise was partly driven by reinforcement learning in which politicians engaged in greater incivility following positive feedback. Uncivil tweets tended to receive more approval and attention, publicly indexed by large quantities of “likes” and “retweets” on the platform. Mediational and longitudinal analyses show that the greater this feedback for uncivil tweets, the more uncivil tweets were thereafter. We conclude by discussing how the structure of social media platforms might facilitate this incivility-reinforcing dynamic between politicians and their followers.
BradyW. J.CrockettM. J. (2019). How effective is online outrage?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 79–80.
5.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7418. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
FeinbergM.WillerR.StellarJ. E.KeltnerD. (2012). The virtues of gossip: Reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026650
9.
FrimerJ. A. (2020). Do liberals and conservatives use different moral languages? Two replications and six extensions of Graham, Haidt, and Nosek’s (2009) moral text analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 84, Article 103906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103906
10.
FrimerJ. A.SkitkaL. J. (2018). The Montagu Principle. Incivility decreases politicians’ public approval, even with their political base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(5), 845–866. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000140
HuddyL.YairO. (2019). Reducing affective polarization: Warm group relations or policy compromise [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Diego, CA, United States.
13.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
14.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party pines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
LauR. R.SigelmanL.RovnerI. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. The Journal of Politics, 69, 1176–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x
17.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2018). How democracies die (1st ed.). Crown.
MannT. E.OrnsteinN. J. (2012). It’s even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. Basic Books.
20.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement. University of Chicago Press.
21.
MutzD. C. (2015). In-your-face politics. The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton University Press.
22.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15.
23.
NugierA.NiedenthalP. M.BrauerM.ChekrounP. (2007). Moral and angry emotions provoked by informal social control. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1699–1720. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930601124738
PorathC. L.ErezA. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How incivility reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.003
26.
RiskinA.ErezA.FoulkT. A.Riskin-GeuzK. S.ZivA.SelaR.Pessach-GelblumL.BambergerP. A. (2017). Incivility and medical team performance. Pediatrics, 139, Article e20162305. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2305
SheaD. M.FiorinaM. P. (2013). Can we talk? The ride of rude, nasty, stubborn politics. Pearson.
30.
SkinnerB. F. (1948). Superstition in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.
31.
SydnorE. (2019). Disrespectful democracy. Columbia University Press.
32.
SuY.-F.XenosM. A.RoseK. M.WirzC.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD. (2018). Rude and personal? Comparing patterns of incivility in comments on the Facebook pages of news outlets. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3678–3699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818757205
33.
TheocharisY.BarberáP.FazekasZ.PopaS. A. (2020). The dynamics of political incivility on Twitter. SAGE Open, 10(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919447
34.
ThorndikeE. (1898). Some experiments on animal intelligence. Science, 8(18), 818–824.
35.
WangM. Y.SilvaD. E. (2018). A slap or a jab: An experiment on viewing uncivil political discussions on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.041
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.
