Abstract
Diana Mutz takes a pleasantly literal and definitely worthwhile look at “in-your-face” televised political discourse in the United States. Although no reader will be surprised to see a discussion of the effects and implications of uncivil rhetoric, they may be surprised to see that Mutz also incorporates the effects of the presentation of that rhetoric, with an examination of how being thrust—by virtue of television camera work—directly into a face-to-face exchange with the politicians and pundits we watch on TV violates social norms and creates an uncomfortable psychological arousal.
As she notes early on, we (like it or not) are getting the kind of intimate treatment that is usually reserved for one’s “lover or dentist,” and the working theory of the book is that this “in-your-face” presentation has measurable effects on levels of attention, learning, and trust in the electorate. Through a combination of laboratory experiments and population-based survey data, Mutz makes a case for significant effects from both incivility and visual distance, though these effects are not uniform and not necessarily all negative. The concluding part takes a stab at some normative suggestions to maintain levels of voter interest in political media without the uncivil elements that often support it, but these suggestions will seem either fanciful or comical to those who seek a return to a more civil American political discourse (if, in fact, it ever existed).
Mutz, director of the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, is in a particularly advantageous position to examine these questions. Her previous work has focused on these kinds of political conflict communication distinctions before (most notably in 1998’s Impersonal Influence), and this book continues her examination of deliberation, position, and influence in a direction that is perfectly complementary to the burgeoning research in political communication and media circles into how the media marketplace is changing, both in its composition as well as its possible (and present) effects.
In an approachable and (at times) humorous voice, Mutz runs down the results of experimental treatments involving civil and uncivil political disagreement, as well as the visual distance used in presenting those disagreements. “Close-up” presentation of candidates and increased levels of incivility both increased levels of psychological arousal in viewers, and evaluations of the candidates that viewers opposed suffered in the uncivil environment; interestingly, and confirmed at least in part by recent presidential primary history, support for the preferred candidate did not suffer when that candidate behaved in an uncivil manner. Viewers also demonstrated increased open-ended recall of the content they reviewed when the discourse was uncivil, suggesting that there is, at least, a positive learning component to incivility. However, Mutz also details the dark side of this uncivil discourse: Although viewers remembered more of the arguments they were exposed to, they respected the opposition’s arguments less. Even though this has no real impact on our debate over media effects as they pertain to vote choice, it has a significant impact on our discussion of the democratic norm of acceptance of political “losses.” In short, incivility has the power to erode both confidence and trust in politicians and the system at large, which is potentially a much greater impact than short-term gains or losses in public support for individual candidates.
Mutz also provides evidence that these effects are not distributed evenly throughout the electorate, and, in fact, that uncivil media are effectively empowering a conservative, anti-government agenda. When trust in government erodes, it also reduces support for government intervention in areas like poverty and healthcare. This is particularly true among conservatives and Republicans, who are both more aroused by incivility and are more likely to be exposed to it. These are particularly useful findings when one considers what appears to be an increasingly active and vocal anti-establishment, anti-government, and politically nihilist wing of the Republican Party.
There are only a few weaknesses here. For one, the methodology greatly limits the external validity of the findings. It is in the nature of experimental models that they are not the “real world,” but Mutz goes out of her way to validate her experimental findings with population-based survey data that at least demonstrate that these effects appear to be present at the macro (as well as micro) level. However, at times the lines that are drawn are a bit of a stretch, for example, when she suggests that increasing incivility matches an increasing affective distance partisans’ evaluations of their own party and the opposing party. There is also a surprising omission regarding the estimated effects of incivility in Internet content. Although it is perfectly understandable to indicate that such material was not considered here and that there is, as yet, no scholarly consensus on whether the Internet increases exposure to incivility, I find the fact that there is almost no explicit discussion of incivility in social media to be a conspicuous absence. Even though there is a discussion of incivility in user comment sections integral to existing media content, this seems hardly sufficient.
Finally, the last chapter examines a number of prescriptions to maintain the attention-grabbing virtues of uncivil media but excises the inherently trust-eroding elements—but these prescriptions revolve around turning the electoral/political process into something of a competition reality show (“Our Next American President,” the mock title offered). This suggestion seems to run counter to a point made earlier in the work, which is that media obsession with presenting politics as part of a broader game schema is a significant cause of the loss of trust in government and faith in politicians, as all are presented as scheming opportunists who are simply trying to “win.” Formalizing that attitude with an actual game-show, reality-competition frame surely cannot help—perhaps a less aware and less interested electorate is actually preferable to it.
Ultimately, though, this is a book that adds useful empirical data to our examination of media effects and political psychology, particularly as we push deeper into an ever-more-complex Media Politics age. It is accessible to both lay people and the academic community alike, with the statistical treatments held to a minimum in favor of clear and succinct exposition and explanation. It adds to other works that seek to demythologize and clarify media behavior and effects, and grounds its conclusions in a series of thoughtful and specific experimental tests. The most likely negative outcome is that once you read it, you are going to really notice just how much of your screen is filled with Bill O’Reilly’s head.