The 1 thing to avoid in online political arguments
IF your goal is to persuade people, that is.
- A recent study examined the role that incivility plays in how people perceive online political arguments.
- The results showed that incivility led to more negative perceptions of political arguments — even when the argument was logical.
- The researchers suggested that name-calling, mockery and other forms of incivility should be avoided if you want to persuade people along political lines.
What's a great way not to persuade people in online political discussions? Toss in a bit of incivility. That's the takeaway from a new study published in Computers in Human Behavior that examined the role incivility plays in online discussions between different political groups.
"Conflict between political groups is interesting to me because it presents an intergroup situation where individuals often assert their views with a great deal of certainty and a great deal of enmity, yet discussions and contact between people with different political perspectives and identities is important to democratic society," study author Dr. Jason Popan, an associate professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, told PsyPost.
In a series of experiments, the researchers asked liberal and conservative participants to read fabricated online political arguments, and to evaluate the rationality of arguments proposed by people of the opposite political persuasion. The participants evaluated whether the arguments were strong or weak, civil or uncivil.
The results showed that participants were more likely to rate uncivil arguments as irrational — even if the argument was strong. What's more, strong incivility seemed to negatively affect participants' perceptions of the opposing political group.
It's discouraging, Popan suggested, because having tough conversations between ideologically opposed groups is how we reach compromise as a society, but it's incredibly difficult to do when incivility is ubiquitous online.
"Opportunities to learn about an opposition group's political rationales may be overshadowed by the salience of incivility," the researchers wrote. "Supporting this view, the results of an experiment where the civility of blog posts was manipulated suggested that incivility leads to a greater tendency to rely on heuristics rather than argument content to reach decisions."
So, how do you have less toxic political arguments? Popan offered some advice.
"If you want to persuade others that disagree with you by the content of the argument you are making, it is generally best to avoid belittling their views," Popan told PsyPost. "Name calling and mockery will cause your arguments to appear to be less rational, even in circumstances where you are making good points.
Interestingly, it remains unclear how exactly incivility affects the perceptions of in-group arguments. That's a question future research will hopefully examine.
"Incivility in U.S politics has been a growing concern, but the latest (2016) presidential demonstrated that incivility, name calling, and mockery can be a central part of a winning political campaign," Popan told PsyPost. "How such behaviors impact the potential for political deliberation between opposition political groups to lead to progress through compromise remains to be seen, but it seems unlikely that compromise and progress can coexist with behavior consistent with a wrestling entertainment match."
- Nasty Effect:'' Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging ... ›
- Toxic Talk: How Online Incivility Can Undermine Perceptions of Media ›
- Online Incivility is Broader Than Hate On Social Media ›
Former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen discusses whether our society should always defend free speech rights, even for groups who would oppose such rights.
- Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen understands that protecting free speech rights isn't always a straightforward proposition.
- In this video, Strossen describes the reasoning behind why the ACLU defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, 1977.
- The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
The results contradict the popular assumption that men react far more strongly to pornography.
- The review examined the results of 61 brain-scanning studies that involved 1,850 people.
- The results of the review found no significant differences in how male and female brains respond to viewing visual erotic stimuli.
- Still, one of the researchers noted that there are sex-specific differences in sexual behavior.
Strangely, the sun showed no sunspots at the time the photo was taken.
- The photo shows the International Space Station as it orbits the Earth, as it does every 90 minutes.
- The photo is remarkable because it offers a glimpse of the star at a time when there were no sunspots.
- In November, astronauts aboard the ISS plan to grow Española chili pepper plants.
The reason one diet does not suit all may be found in our guts.