Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:20:20.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Don’t @ Me: Experimentally Reducing Partisan Incivility on Twitter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2020

Kevin Munger Open the ORCID record for Kevin Munger [Opens in a new window]
Kevin Munger*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, Pond Lab, State College, PA, USA
*
Corresponding author. Email: kmm7999@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I conduct an experiment which examines the impact of moral suasion on partisans engaged in uncivil arguments. Partisans often respond in vitriolic ways to politicians they disagree with, and this can engender hateful responses from partisans from the other side. This phenomenon was especially common during the contentious 2016 US Presidential Election. Using Twitter accounts that I controlled, I sanctioned people engaged partisan incivility in October 2016. I found that messages containing moral suasion were more effective at reducing incivility than were messages with no moral content in the first week post-treatment. There were no significant treatment effects in the first day post-treatment, emphasizing the need for research designs that measure effect duration. The type of moral suasion employed, however, did not have the expected differential effect on either Republicans or Democrats. These effects were significantly moderated by the anonymity of the subjects.

Keywords

affective polarizationTwitterfield experiment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Summer 2021 , pp. 102 - 116
Copyright
© The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank many people for their feedback on this paper, especially the members of the NYU SMaPP lab, Livio D. Lonardo, J. Hodgdon Bisbee, Drew Dimmery, Neal Beck, Josh Tucker, Jonathan Nagler, Patrick Egan, Chris Dawes, Andy Guess, Alex Siegel, Joanna Sterling, John Jost, and participants at the several conferences I presented this work in during 2017. I declare no conflicts of interest. The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: doi:10.7910/DVN/OUYTUP.

References

Barberá, Pablo. 2014. streamR: Access to Twitter Streaming API via R. R package version 0.2 1.Google Scholar
Bejan, Teresa M. 2017. Mere Civility. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M and Sobieraj, Sarah. 2013. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Adrian. 2015. The Agency. New York Times Magazine June 2, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cresci, Stefano, Di Pietro, Roberto, Petrocchi, Marinella, Spognardi, Angelo and Tesconi, Maurizio. 2017. The paradigm-shift of social spambots: Evidence, theories, and tools for the arms race. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee pp. 963–972.Google Scholar
Duggan, M and Smith, A. 2016. The political environment on social media. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/political-content-on-social-media/Google Scholar
Frijda, Nico H. 1988. The Laws of Emotion. American Psychologist 43(5):349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwood, S, Perrin, A and Duggan, M. 2016. Social Media Update 2016. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by religion and politics. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Hindman, Matthew. 2008. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. Affect, Not Ideology a Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3):405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muddiman, Ashley. 2017. Personal and Public Levels of Political Incivility. International Journal of Communication 11:21.Google Scholar
Munger, Kevin. 2017. Tweetment Effects on the Tweeted: Experimentally Reducing Racist Harassment. Political Behavior 39(3):629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, Kevin. 2020. Replication Data for: Don’t @ Me: Experimentally Reducing Partisan Incivility on Twitter. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OUYTUPCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2015. In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media. New York: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Whitney. 2015. This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theocharis, Yannis, Barberá, Pablo, Fazekas, Zoltan and Popa, Sebastian Adrian. 2015. A Bad Workman Blames His Tweets? The Consequences of Citizens’ Uncivil Twitter Use When Interacting with Party Candidates. The Consequences of Citizens’ Uncivil Twitter Use When Interacting with Party Candidates (September 5, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulczyn, Ellery, Thain, Nithum and Dixon, Lucas. 2017. Ex machina: Personal attacks seen at scale. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee pp. 1391–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Munger Dataset

Dataset

https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OUYTUP
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Munger supplementary material

Munger supplementary material

Download Munger supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 748.4 KB