About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


51 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1 (2007)

handle is hein.journals/amjorpolisci51 and id is 1 raw text is: Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate Deborah Jordan BrookS Dartmouth College John G. Geer Vanderbilt University There is much concern among pundits and political observers that incivility undermines our electoral process. Yet we have little evidence that actually documents whether incivility has such pernicious effects. This article seeks to advance our understanding of the influence of incivility on the electorate. We argue that three dimensions are central to understanding both theperceptions and effects ofdifferent types ofcampaign messages: tone (negative versus positive); civility (civil versus uncivil); and focus (issue versus trait-based message content). Using an experimental manipulation on a large national sample that examines these three dimensions, wefind that uncivil attacks in campaigns do not appear to be as worrisome as its detractors fear. While uncivil messages in general-and uncivil trait-based messages in particular-are usually seen by thepublic as being lessfair, less informative, and less important than both their civil negative andpositive counterparts, they are no more likely to lead to detrimental effects among the public. In fact, incivility appears to have some modest positive consequences for the political engagement of the electorate. Thesefindings are important, since attacks and counterattacks will continue to shape the American political landscape. t is hard to imagine an election that would be in- formative without some degree of both positive and negative campaigning by the candidates. Democracy rests in part on the ability of candidates for office to both promote their own qualifications for office and question those of the opposition. Yet a casual look at political dis- course suggests that attacks today often go beyond in- formative exchanges by crossing a proverbial line and becoming excessively harsh. Once this line is crossed, we move beyond a discussion of just negativity. We are now talking about incivility: attacks that go beyond facts and differences, and move instead towards name-calling, con- tempt, and derision of the opposition. Incivility undermines our electoral process-or at least that is the conventional wisdom. Mutz and Reeves, for example, write that there is widespread concern in the United States about a 'civility crisis' in public life (2005, 1). Carter (1998) worries about the costs for the public of an increasingly nasty political debate. Patter- son (2002) seconds this concern, fearing that harsh at- tacks will turn the electorate away from political life. This view is shared in varying degrees by Ansolabehere and lyengar (1995), Buchanan (2004), and Kahn and Kenney (2004), among others. Beyond scholarly concerns, un- ease about the effects of harsh campaigning abounds in the media (see Brooks 2006 for a content analysis of re- cent discussions in the news media about campaign tone and turnout). And even some political consultants-the very individuals who tend to be responsible for perpet- uating the uncivil tactics in question-express concern about the tenor of contemporary political campaigning. Ron Faucheux, a political consultant and the former pub- lisher and editor of the political consulting industry's Campaigns and Elections magazine, argues there is a de- clining sense of civility in our politics, an abandonment of standards... It's an abscess that has oozed its toxin Deborah Jordan Brooks is assistant professor of government, Dartmouth College, 6108 Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH 03755 (Deborah.J.Brooks@Dartmouth.edu). John G. Geer is professor of political science, Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 (john.g.geer@vanderbilt.edu). We would like to thank Time-Sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS) for funding the fieldwork for this project and the Dartmouth Rockefeller Center for supplementary funding. Caitlin Noel Sause and Daniel J. Mahoneyhave our gratitude for their outstanding research assistance to this project. We would also like to thank Eric Bucy, William Jacoby, Diana Mutz, Lynn Vavreck, the Indiana University Political Communication Colloquium, the three anonymous TESS experiment proposal reviewers, and the three anonymous referees for AJPS for support and guidance on this work. American Journal ofPolitical Science, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 2007, Pp. 1-16 ©2007, Midwest Political Science Association ISSN 0092-5853 1