The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust

Does incivility in political discourse have adverse effects on public regard for politics? If so, why? In this study we present a theory suggesting that when viewers are exposed to televised political disagreement, it often violates well-established face-to-face social norms for the polite expression of opposing views. As a result, incivility in public discourse adversely affects trust in government. Drawing on three laboratory experiments, we find that televised presentations of political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians. However, political trust is adversely affected by levels of incivility in these exchanges. Our findings suggest that the format of much political television effectively promotes viewer interest, but at the expense of political trust. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/123 American Political Science Review Vol. 99, No. 1 February 2005 The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust DIANA C. MUTZ University of Pennsylvania BYRON REEVES Stanford University Does incivility in political discourse have adverse effects on public regard for politics? If so, why? In this study we present a theory suggesting that when viewers are exposed to televised political disagreement, it often violates well-established face-to-face social norms for the polite expression of opposing views. As a result, incivility in public discourse adversely affects trust in government. Drawing on three laboratory experiments, we find that televised presentations of political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians. However, political trust is adversely affected by levels of incivility in these exchanges. Our findings suggest that the format of much political television effectively promotes viewer interest, but at the expense of political trust. Does incivility in political discourse affect public regard for politics? Or is a certain amount of rancorous debate part and parcel of what citizens expect from political actors? Is watching politicians and pundits hurl insults at one another on television merely a harmless pastime, or does it have consequences for how people think about politics and government? In particular, does televised political incivility harm levels of trust in government and politicians? There is now widespread concern in the United States about a “civility crisis” in public life. As Rodin (1996) suggests, “Across America and increasingly around the world, from campuses to the halls of Congress, to talk radio and network TV, social and political life seem dominated today by incivility. . . .No one seems to question the premise that political debate has become too extreme, too confrontational, too coarse.” Calls for greater civility in political discourse have come from a wide array of scholars, as well as from philanthropic organizations that see incivility as a threat to the functioning of democracy.1 But to date, there has been little effort to confirm empirically the negative consequences of incivility. A number of scholars suggest that incivility in political discourse is one of the key reasons why Americans tend to be negative toward politicians and political institutions. According to this line of thought, political conflict is seen as unnecessary and distasteful. As Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995, 147) explain, “Citizens . . . dislike being exposed to processes endemic to democratic government. People do not wish Diana C. Mutz is Samuel A. Stouffer Professor of Political Science and Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 248 Stiteler Hall, 208 S. 37th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6215 ([email protected]). Byron Reeves is Paul C. Edwards Professor of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation to the first author and by the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University. The authors would like to thank Kevin Wise, Justin Taylor and Andrew Holbrook for their help with data collection and analyses. 1 There are, however, some who do not see civility as a virtue (see, e.g., Kennedy 1998). to see uncertainty, conflicting options, long debate, competing interests, confusion, bargaining, and compromised, imperfect solutions.” Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht (1997) similarly suggest that it is precisely when Congress is doing its job, debating and ultimately resolving controversial political issues, that public regard for this institution declines. Others argue more narrowly, suggesting that it is not conflict per se, but the incivility with which political elites disagree that prompts negative attitudes. Uslaner (1993), for example, has suggested that members of Congress are increasingly likely to violate norms of politeness in their discourse, and Tannen (1998) characterizes the United States as “a culture of argument” that encourages “a pervasive warlike atmosphere.” To the casual observer, politicians seem to be perpetually involved in bitter conflict. If political conflict is aired openly in an uncivil fashion, can citizens be expected to maintain respect for politics and politicians? Televised portrayals of political conflict have received a particularly severe beating with respect to levels of civility. Elving (1994), for example, cites television coverage of congressional floor debate as an important source of dissatisfaction with Congress. Cappella and Jamieson (1997) point to media reports that highlight conflict in politics as a source of greater political cynicism. The increasing visibility of political conflict through television seems indisputable (see Funk 2001), and even journalists concur that in American politics, “hyperbole and venomous invective are common talk.”2 Viewers’ sense that politicians are engaged in pointless bickering is assumed to be fed by media coverage emphasizing the intensity of conflict whenever possible (see also, McGraw, Willey, and Anderson 1998). It is unclear whether elite political discourse is really any less civil than in the days when duels were occasionally used to resolve differences of opinion (see, e.g., Altschuler and Blumin 2000 and Sapiro 1999). However, the dominance of television as a source of exposure to politics suggests that, at the very least, 2 Michiko Kakutani, “Polarization of National Dialogue Mirrors Extremists of Left and Right.” The New York Times, 26 November 2000, National Section, p. 27.