The 2016 presidential campaign has seen candidates go head-to-head for months, with one memorable quip after another. While politically charged insults have succeeded in gaining the attention of voters and the media, experts caution that they may also cause Americans to lose faith in politics.
Jabs at other candidates and snappy ‘Trumpisms’ create an uncivil debate, studies have found, and this type of environment has proven in the past to have a negative impact on the democratic process.
Donald Trump has gained notoriety for frequently insulting other candidates and even reporters throughout the campaign season.
But, candidates across both parties have been dishing out verbal offenses, and it’s likely to continue throughout the primaries.
Experts are now questioning whether this behaviour actually sways voter decisions, or just rings out among the echo-chamber of social media, according to Live Science.
A 2005 study published in the journal American Political Science Review tracked the reactions of viewers during mock television debates.
The researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University in California created different versions to show civil and uncivil debates.
In a civil debate, politicians (played by actors) did not interrupt their opponents and were polite in their answers.
The uncivil version showed politicians discussing the same points, but acting impolitely – interrupting their opponents with huffing and eye-rolling, or making remarks including ‘you’re really missing the point,’ at the start of their own answers.
According to Live Science, these participants who watched the uncivil debates reported less trust for politics overall, including Congress and the entire United States.
‘The results of these experiments show that uncivil political discourse has detrimental effects on political trust,’ the authors write.
‘Not only were attitudes toward politicians and Congress affected, but levels of support for the institutions of government themselves also were influenced.’
In a follow-up experiment, the team tracked changes in perspiration called galvanic skin responses, and revealed a paradox within the system – these heated debates may create distrust, but they also hype up the viewers.
‘There is an obvious paradox embedded in these findings,’ the researchers write.
‘On the one hand, viewers respond negatively to incivility in the judgments they make about politicians and government. On the other hand, they are clearly drawn to incivility, and enjoy watching it much more than civil programming.’
For candidates like Trump, creating an atmosphere of political distrust may work in their favour Jacob Neiheisel, a political scientist at the University of Buffalo, explained to Live Science.
This could be a way of getting existing supporters amped up to vote for them, rather than changing minds during a debate,
‘Candidates might have different objectives other than changing minds,’ he told Live Science.
The researcher says that the behaviours of candidates could even trickle down to their supporters, effecting the way people discuss politics.
So far, studies have shown that Americans largely have a tendency to refrain from online confrontation about politics, even taking trolls into account, Live Science writes.
It was even found that people were less significantly likely to discuss political matters online than in person.
So while insults may riddle the feeds of candidates like Trump, many Americans are instead taking a civil approach.
