How Moral Value Commitments Shape Responses to Political Civility and Incivility

• Author: Keena Lipsitz,Annemarie Walter
• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X211004137
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211004137

American Politics Research

2021, Vol. 49(4) 359 –367

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X211004137

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Political incivility is on the rise in the United States and the

public has noticed. A December 2018 poll found that 70% of

Americans believe that the, “overall tone and level of civil-

ity” in politics has gotten worse since the November 2016

election.1 There is ample evidence to back up all of these

observations. Scholars have noted the increase in incivility

during electoral campaigns and in floor debates in Congress

(Stryker et al. 2016). The consequences of this rise in incivil-

ity are bleak. Research has found that when elites use uncivil

political discourse, the public follows (Gervais, 2014, 2017).

It can also create a disdain for opposing views and reduce

political trust (Mutz 2007).2 Thus, although there might be

some contexts in which incivility is politically useful, most

research suggests it degrades democracy.

These concerns about political incivility have compelled

researchers to begin investigating how individuals respond

to it and what might explain heterogeneity in their responses.

Why does incivility anger some people while it leaves other

unmoved? Many studies show that people vary in how they

respond to negative or aversive stimuli in general so it is no

surprise that there is considerable variation in responses to

political incivility (Canli et al., 2001; Soroka, 2014). Several

studies have found that male conservatives are more tolerant

of it (Mutz, 2015; Stryker et al., 2016; Fridkin & Kenney,

2011). Others have found that strength of partisanship, politi-

cal interest, and having less education increase this tolerance

(Mutz, 2015; Fridkin & Kenney, 2011) but these effects are

found less consistently. Media consumption also appears to

be related to tolerating incivility, with those watching Fox

News and The Daily Show having a particularly high toler-

ance (Styker et al., 2016). This study tries to uncover some of

the deeper, psychological foundations that affect responses

to incivility. In particular, we draw on Moral Foundations

Theory (MFT) to determine how respondent preferences for

certain systems of moral regulation shape emotional

responses to incivility and civility.

Using a representative, online sample of 1,789 respon-

dents from the United States, this study uses a survey-

embedded vignette experiment, which describes interactions

between two Senate candidates during a debate, to assess

how moral value commitments affect emotional responses to

political civility and incivility. We manipulate the nature of

the debate fragment (civil, neutral, uncivil) and find that

those who have a stronger commitment to an individualizing

system of moral regulation have a stronger emotional

1004137APRXXX10.1177/1532673X211004137American Politics ResearchWalter and Lipsitz

research-article2021

1University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

2Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, NL

3Queens College and The Graduate Center, City University of New York,

New York, USA

The author order is random and both authors contributed equally to the

article.

Corresponding Author:

Keena Lipsitz, Department of Political Science, Queens College and The

Graduate Center, CUNY, 65-30 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY 11367, USA.

Email: klipsitz@qc.cuny.edu

How Moral Value Commitments Shape

Responses to Political Civility and

Incivility

Annemarie Walter1,2 and Keena Lipsitz3

Abstract

Citizen exposure to political incivility is increasing. Studies have found heterogeneous responses to incivility, but we know

little about what drives this variation. This study investigates whether emotional responses to both civility and incivility are

driven by moral value commitments. Drawing on Moral Foundations Theory, we argue that incivility should pose more of a

threat to people who embrace an individualizing system of moral regulation than a binding system. To test this, we conduct a

3 × 3 between-subjects survey-embedded vignette experiment with a representative sample of 1,789 U.S. respondents. The

vignettes describe interactions between two candidates in a debate. The findings show that respondents clearly distinguish

between civil, neutral, and uncivil debate and that these conditions yield distinct emotional responses. Moreover, we show

“individualizers” have a stronger emotional response to incivility than “binders.” Responses to civility, however, appear to be

unaffected by moral value commitments.

Keywords

political incivility, moral foundations theory