< Back to previous page

Project

On Silver Tongues and Silver Linings - Examining controversial political communication and its effects on citizens’ reasoning

Politicians’ communication is subject to widespread controversy. Name-calling, empty statements and woolly language are publicly condemned by many, because this type of communication is considered “not done” but also because such violations of supposed widely shared norms are feared to have detrimental democratic effects.

Controversial political communication is at the core of this dissertation. It is described here as politicians’ public communication (often in the media) that sparks public discussion, scrutiny, and controversy. Importantly, it does not solely do this because of the content of the message or the opinion that is conveyed. Rather, it is controversial because of the way in which it is communicated and the impact this may or may not have on citizens. This type of communication may be provocative and present a deviation from certain established normative ideas of what is considered acceptable and appropriate within the political arena.

These ubiquitous concerns and controversies surrounding silver-tongued politicians form the starting point of this dissertation. Generally, they are based on three assumptions about today’s political communication:

-> that it is indeed in a bad state (and worse than before);

-> that it violates widely shared social norms, and

-> that this has profound negative effects on citizens.

Whether these assumptions hold true is, however, largely untested. We do not know, for instance, whether politicians have indeed increased their mudslinging and simplifications throughout the years, nor do we know for certain that everyone would believe that to be a bad thing. When it comes to the effects of politicians’ controversial communication, some research even seems to indicate potential democratic benefits, such as attracting more attention to politics.

This dissertation asks and subsequently tests if we should, indeed, be worried about the way politicians talk today and investigates the presence of potential silver linings to the dark clouds of controversial communication (or whether silence is, indeed, golden). In particular, citizens’ reflective reasoning – the extent to which they weigh pros and cons and consider different perspectives – is put center stage as an important outcome of political communication that could be helped or hampered by controversy.

The different chapters of this dissertation assess the nature, prevalence, and perceptions of controversial political communication and its (democratic) potential, attempting to answer two overarching questions.

A. How has (controversial) political communication evolved over time and how is it perceived today?

B. How does politicians’ controversial communication impact citizens, and, in particular, their political reasoning?

 

While many attributes of politicians’ communication can be considered controversial, this dissertation primarily focuses on incivility (rudeness, impoliteness), unsophisticatedness (lack of substance, simplified content) and inaccessibility (overly complex, incomprehensible language), as prime examples of controversial communicative characteristics.

The different chapters of this dissertation map the evolution of these characteristics throughout time in televised election debates, assess citizens normative views on such communication, theorize about how controversial communication could spur reflection, and subsequently test this in two experiments. In line with the two main questions, two broad conclusions can be drawn.

 

On the (perceived) state and controversiality of contemporary political communication: No increase, and different normative views

Overall, barring conditionalities and the election debate context under study, the state of today’s mediated political communication is not considerably worse than it was before. In contrast with “alarming” accounts of deteriorating quality of political debate, no decline could be detected in 35 years of Belgian televised election debates. Rather, the use of controversial communication by silver-tongued politicians was found to be context-dependent and occurring in ups and downs. This lack of a decline should not be understood synonymously with an absence of controversial communication. Politicians do use uncivil, inaccessible and unsophisticated language, and citizens largely do pick up on this. However, whilst citizens largely perceive controversial characteristics to be present in politicians’ communication, their judgment differs: some citizens find it more problematic than others. Very succinctly summarized, this dissertation thus shows that political communication has not become more controversial over time, that citizens do pick up on the controversial elements that are present, and that not everyone finds controversial political communication equally normatively objectionable. In other words, politicians today are not more silver-tongued than before, although some citizens may still prefer gold.

 

On the impact of mediated controversial political communication on citizens: Little benefits for democracy and politicians

So, how does controversial political communication impact citizens, and, in particular, their political reasoning? This dissertation tells us that, whilst controversy may grab citizens’ attention, its reasoning-spurring potential is not realized. It does not inspire citizens to reason about what is being said, nor does it do the politicians in question any favors in the likeability and competence department. Whilst the deviation from the status quo that controversial communication presents may be novel enough to catch the eye of the public, it does not inspire further consideration of what is being said. Despite finding no deteriorating communicative quality of political debates, this dissertation thus showed that existing worries are, indeed, valid. All in all, whilst controversiality may be seen as beneficial in specific circumstances, when reflection and reasoning are the core outcome of interest, silver linings are hard to find.

 

This dissertation shows that things may not be as bad as we thought but also that the effects of controversial political communication are not so great either. In doing so, it highlights the overall importance of challenging and testing widespread assumptions, and the value of considering contextual factors when researching communication content and effects. This approach resulted in the crystallization of the disparity between perceptions and the reality of controversial communication, raising important questions about the sources of public perception and stressing the need for further research into how citizens form their opinions about political communication and politics more generally. Moreover, the dissertation shows that there is no such thing as universal negative effects of controversial political communication as a whole. Instead, the research presented here highlights that different controversial characteristics can impact different outcomes in different ways. As such, normative judgments of controversial communication are contingent on, and should be specified for, one’s outcome of interest.

In sum, this dissertation contributes to a more nuanced understanding of controversial political communication. It does so through challenging prevailing assumptions, and highlighting the importance of context, perception vs. reality, and the normative judgments of citizens. Taken together, this provides valuable insights into the impact of controversial communication on citizens' reasoning and opens up new avenues for further exploration in this field.

Date:15 Jan 2019 →  15 Dec 2023
Keywords:Political communication, Debate quality, Incivility, Reflective reasoning, Sophisticatedness, Accessibility
Disciplines:Political psychology, Public opinion, Political communication, Political campaigns, Communication sciences not elsewhere classified
Project type:PhD project