How Incivility on Partisan Media (De)Polarizes the Electorate
Abstract
Partisan media—typically characterized by incivility—has become a defining element of the American political communication environment. While scholars have explored the consequences of partisan media for political attitudes and behaviors, little work has looked at how variations in incivility moderate partisan media’s effects. Using a population-based survey experiment, we show that incivility affectively depolarizes partisans when it comes from an in-party source (e.g., MSNBC for Democrats, Fox News for Republicans). Incivility on out-party sources affectively polarizes the audience, however, and we show that the respondent’s degree of conflict aversion conditions these effects. Our results raise intriguing normative questions about the trade-offs between polarization and incivility and highlight how scholars must account for both levels of incivility and partisan slant when studying the effects of partisan media.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Incivility on Fox News polarized mostly the Democrats viewing the channel in a survey experiment.
“Fox News also triggered polarization on the other side: incivility on Fox News polarized mostly the Democrats viewing the channel in a survey experiment (Druckman et al., 2018).”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Druckman et al., 2018
Exposure to same-party and other-party messages on partisan media platforms often increases affective polarization, in the latter case because of resistance to change and the spontaneous generation of counterarguments.
“exposure to same-party and other-party messages on partisan media platforms often increases affective polarization, in the latter case because of resistance to change and the spontaneous generation of counterarguments249.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [249]
Exposure to overly confrontational, uncivil discourse from members of one's own party can lead to depolarization; this is because citizens view such rhetoric as norm-violating and wish to distance themselves from the source of the message.
“exposure to overly confrontational, uncivil discourse from members of one’s own party can lead to depolarization; this is because citizens view such rhetoric as norm-violating and wish to distance themselves from the source of the message249.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [249]
Cites
No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12325 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Self-citationReducing affective polarization: Warm group relations or policy compromise?
Huddy, L., & Yair, O. (2021) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12699 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Brüggemann, M., & Meyer, H. (2023) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtad012 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Trump, Personalism, and US Administrative Capacity
Moynihan, D. (2025) · Politics & Policy · doi:10.1111/polp.70059 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“A variety of studies that have taken place in the shadow of Trump's influence illustrate that elite messaging can undermine democratic norms, feeding prejudice, incivility, and animus toward out-groups (Clayton et al. 2021; Druckman et al. 2019; Mason et al. 2021).”
Cuéllar Rivero, R. (2024) · Revista Española de Ciencia Política · doi:10.21308/recp.64.07 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Druckman, J. N., Gubitz, S. R., Levendusky, M. S., & Lloyd, A. M.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 291-295
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W2903336643
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 17.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- partisan media, incivility, affective polarization, depolarization, audience effects, political communication, Fox News, MSNBC
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
