Political Incivility and Disgust

• In Event: How Public Opinion Does (and Does Not) Constrain Elites

Abstract

Contrary to conventional wisdom, a growing body of research has shown that elites are punished for insulting the partisan out-group, and that political incivility coming from in-group elites depolarize partisans, by reducing regard for the partisan in-group and improving feelings for the out-group (Costa 2021; Druckman et al. 2018; Frimer and Skitka 2018; Skytte 2022).

Why political incivility has this effect is unclear. In this paper, I argue that feelings of disgust serve as the crucial causal mechanism. Because political incivility is norm-violating behavior, it threatens the group moral status. Group members are motivated to preserve group moral status, particularly moral superiority relative to the out-group (Ellemers, Pagliaro, Barreto, and Leach 2008). Failing to meet moral standards is a particularly aversive experience for group members (Monin 2007; Tauber and van Zomeren 2013; Tetlock 2002). Disgust is one form of aversion. However, factor analyses have also demonstrated that it is distinct from other aversive emotions, like anger and contempt (Marcus et al. 2006). Additionally, the actions that disgust elicits are different from that of anger.

In political contexts, disgust triggers moral thinking, and people’s expressions of disgust “signal rejection in the face of objects, events and people they consider objectionable or contaminated,” (Hatemi and McDermott 2012). Disgust prompts people to distance and disassociate themselves from the object or person that triggers it (Hatemi and McDermott 2012). This applies most obviously to out-group members. But it also suggests that disgust felt towards in-group members or their behavior leads to ostracizing. For this reason, as Haidt (2003) explains, disgust can be considered pro-social: “[b]y ostracizing those who trigger moral disgust, people in a society set up a reward and punishment structure that acts as a strong deterrent to culturally inappropriate behaviors...” While these behaviors tend to involve the body, non-purity norm violations have also been linked to feelings of moral disgust. (Gutierrez and Giner Sorolla 2007). This includes taboo behavior, like cheating hypocrisy, and cruelty (Miller 1997).

While this suggests that in-elite uncivil attacks on the other side may generally induce disgust, this rhetoric many be welcomed by partisans when they face threats to group status. During competitive elections, when the threat of party loss is salient, strong partisans become aroused by evidence of threats to status (Huddy et al. 2015). The elimination of threat to group status (reassurance that the in-group will prevail electorally) is met with enthusiasm among strong partisans (Huddy et al. 2015). Moreover, dominant, aggressive leaders are preferred when threats to group status and intergroup conflict are perceived to be present—and these preferences are motivated by a desire to aggressively overpower out-groups, not desire for protection (Lausten and Bang Peterson 2017). For these reasons, subjects report more support for the use of incivility, in the abstract, against the partisan out-group when electoral competition is significant and salient (Miller and Conover 2015).

To test this theory, I report the results of several survey experiments, in which partisans are exposed uncivil messages attacking the partisan out-group sponsored by in-group elites, and report on scale of 0-100 how the message made them feel. The results are consistent across the experiments: the effects that in-elite incivility has on the aversive emotions are clearly the largest—particularly disgust, as well as anger. However, I also find that threat to group status moderate the effect that in-elite incivility has on disgust, which suggests that salient intergroup competition broadens the appeal of incivility.

Author

• Bryan Gervais, University of Texas at San Antonio