The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust
Open accessAbstract
Does incivility in political discourse have adverse effects on public regard for politics? If so, why? In this study we present a theory suggesting that when viewers are exposed to televised political disagreement, it often violates well-established face-to-face social norms for the polite expression of opposing views. As a result, incivility in public discourse adversely affects trust in government. Drawing on three laboratory experiments, we find that televised presentations of political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians. However, political trust is adversely affected by levels of incivility in these exchanges. Our findings suggest that the format of much political television effectively promotes viewer interest, but at the expense of political trust.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · doi:10.1515/9781400828609 · Cited by 5,156
The limited capacity model of mediated message processing
Lang, A. (2000) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x · Cited by 2,153 · cited 1×
“…one of these tapped attitudes toward congressional debate (including items such as “Members of Congress bicker a lot more than they need to”), and the second index tapped attitudes toward the importance of free and open political debate (e.g., “It’s very important that politicians air their…”
BackgroundStealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs About How Government Should Work
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613722 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Political Polarization in the American Public
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836 · Cited by 1,881
Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12104 · Cited by 964
A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour
MONDAK, J. J., & HALPERIN, K. D. (2008) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123408000173 · Cited by 645
Descriptive Social Norms and Motivation to Vote: Everybody's Voting and so Should You
Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381608090117 · Cited by 561
The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2007) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpl008 · Cited by 553
Metadata
- Authors
- MUTZ, D. C., & REEVES, B.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-15
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2133384311
- Cited by
- 1,053
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 54.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055405051452
- The paper
- MUTZ, D. C., & REEVES, B. (2005). The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051452
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
