Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:21:09.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Race, Gender, and the Politics of Incivility: How Identity Moderates Perceptions of Uncivil Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2022

S.R. Gubitz Open the ORCID record for S.R. Gubitz [Opens in a new window]
S.R. Gubitz*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Social Sciences, Kent Denver School, Cherry Creek Village, CO 80113, USA
*
E-mail: srgubitz@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Many worry that uncivil discourse can undermine democratic processes. Yet, what exactly does it mean for discourse to be uncivil? I argue that there is systematic variation in perceptions of incivility based on the identity of those targeted by uncivil speech. Specifically, I show—via a conjoint survey experiment—that White Americans are less likely to view statements directed at Black Americans as uncivil but more likely to perceive incivility when the target is a woman or a co-partisan. These results suggest an identity-laden aspect of incivility such that it is acceptable to treat Black Americans with less civility but less acceptable to do so for women and co-partisans. The results have implications for how we assess discourse and how that discourse affects the public.

Keywords

Political IncivilityIdentityRacial AttitudesStereotypes
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 2022 , pp. 526 - 543
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Race, Ethnicity, and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association

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.)

References

Allison, ST and Goethals, GR (2011) Heroes: What They Do and Why We Need Them, 1st Edn. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ashley, W (2014) The angry black woman: the impact of pejorative stereotypes on psychotherapy with black women. Social Work in Public Health 29, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bansak, K, Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2021) Conjoint survey experiments. In Druckman, JN and Green, DP (eds), Advances in Experimental Political Science, 1st Edn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, JM and Sobieraj, S (2014) The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility, 1st Edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M and Mullainathan, S (2004) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review 94, 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, AL et al. (2021) This one’s for the boys: how gendered political socialization limits girls’ political ambition and interest. American Political Science Review, 1–18.Google Scholar
Boussalis, C, Coan, TG, Holman, MR and Müller, S (2021) Gender, candidate emotional expression, and voter reactions during televised debates. American Political Science Review 115, 1242–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braunstein, R (2018) Boundary-work and the demarcation of civil from uncivil protest in the United States: control, legitimacy, and political inequality. Theory and Society 47, 603–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, DM and Homola, J (2017) An empirical justification for the use of racially distinctive names to signal race in experiments. Political Analysis 25, 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, KJ (2016) How Civility Works, 1st Edn. Stanford: Stanford Briefs.Google Scholar
Coe, K and Park-Ozee, D (2020) Uncivil name-calling in the U.S. presidency, 1933–2018. Presidential Studies Quarterly 50, 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN, Gubitz, SR, Levendusky, M and Lloyd, A (2019) How incivility on partisan media (de-)polarizes the electorate. Journal of Politics 81, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellemers, N (2018) Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology 69, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endendijk, JJ et al. (2014) Boys don’t play with dolls: mothers’ and fathers’ gender talk during picture book reading. Parenting 14, 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endendijk, JJ et al. (2017) Gender differences in child aggression: relations with gender-differentiated parenting and parents’ gender-role stereotypes. Child Development 88, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, AR (2006) Women’s benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly 30, 410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frimer, JA and Skitka, LJ (2020) Americans hold their political leaders to a higher discursive standard than rank-and-file co-partisans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 86, 103907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddis, MS (2017) How black are Lakisha and Jamal? Racial perceptions from names used in correspondence audit studies. Sociological Science 4, 469–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervais, BT (2017) More than mimicry? The role of anger in uncivil reactions to elite political incivility. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29, 384–405.Google Scholar
Gervais, BT (2019) Rousing the partisan combatant: elite incivility, anger, and antideliberative attitudes. Political Psychology 40, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P and Fiske, ST (1996) The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, DP, Palmquist, B and Schickler, E (2004) Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters, 1st Edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Public Trust in Government (2019) Pew Research Center. Available at https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-2019/ (accessed 24 December 2019).Google Scholar
Henderson, A (2003) What’s in a slur? American Speech 78, 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, S (2010) Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics, 1st Edn. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Ho, AK et al. (2015) The nature of social dominance orientation: theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109, 1003–1028.10.1037/pspi0000033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosseini, H, Kannan, S, Zhang, B and Poovendran, R (2017) Deceiving Google’s Perspective API Built for Detecting Toxic Comments. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08138 (accessed 13 December 2019).Google Scholar
Huddy, L, Mason, L and Aarøe, L (2015) Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review 109, 1–17.10.1017/S0003055414000604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, TA and Urland, GR (2003) Race and gender on the brain: electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 616–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, JM (2019) Black Americans and the ‘crime narrative’: comments on the use of news frames and their impacts on public opinion formation. Politics, Groups, and Identities 7, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenski, K, Coe, K and Rains, SA (2020) Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: an examination of types and predictors. Communication Research 47, 795–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, DR and Sanders, LM (1996) Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals, 1st Edn. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
King, W et al. (2018) Who has the ‘right’ to use the N-word? A survey of attitudes about the acceptability of using the N-word and its derivatives. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language 6, 47–58.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, J (2008) Uncivil Disobedience: Studies in Violence and Democratic Politics, 1st Edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, JL and Fox, RL (2005) It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office, 1st Edn. USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lozano-Reich, NM and Cloud, DL (2009) The uncivil tongue: invitational rhetoric and the problem of inequality. Western Journal of Communication 73, 220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, T and Karpowitz, CF (2016) Power, gender, and group discussion. Political Psychology 37, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muddiman, A (2017) Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication 11, 21.Google Scholar
Muddiman, A, Flores, L and Boyce, B (2021) Descriptive and injunctive incivility norms in political campaigns: differences across behavior type, candidate gender, and candidate party position. American Behavioral Scientist 66, 274–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muddiman, A, McGregor, SC and Stroud, NJ (2019) (Re)claiming our expertise: parsing large text corpora with manually validated and organic dictionaries. Political Communication 36, 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, DC (2015) In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media, 1st Edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omi, M and Winant, H (2014) Racial Formation in the United States, 1st Edn. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, BK (2010) Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, 2nd Edn. Madison, WI: Research Publishers.Google Scholar
Phelan, JE, Moss-Racusin, CA and Rudman, LA (2008) Competent yet out in the cold: shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 32, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, DA and Carranza, E (2002) What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, C (2013) Rhetorics of civility: theory, pedagogy, and practice in speaking and writing textbooks. Rhetoric Review 32, 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, J and Pratto, F (2001) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression, 1st Edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stryker, R, Conway, BA and Danielson, TJ (2016) What is political incivility? Communication Monographs 83, 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sydnor, E (2019a) Disrespectful Democracy: The Psychology of Political Incivility, 1st Edn. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sydnor, E (2019b) Signaling incivility: the role of speaker, substance, and tone. In Boatright, RG, Shaffer, TJ, Sobieraj, S and Young, DG (eds), A Crisis of Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The State of Civility (2017) Weber Shandwick. Available at https://www.webershandwick.com/news/civility-in-america-vii-the-state-of-civility/ (accessed 25 March 2022).Google Scholar
Voci, A (2006) The link between identification and in-group favouritism: effects of threat to social identity and trust-related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology 45, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walley-Jean, CJ (2009) Debunking the myth of the ‘angry black woman’: an exploration of anger in young African American women. Black Women, Gender + Families 3, 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wann, DL and Grieve, FG (2005) Biased evaluations of in-group and out-group spectator behavior at sporting events: the importance of team identification and threats to social identity. The Journal of Social Psychology 145, 531–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wingfield, AH (2007) The modern mammy and the angry black man: African American professionals’ experiences with gendered racism in the workplace. Race, Gender & Class 14, 196–212.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gubitz supplementary material

Appendices A-J

Download Gubitz supplementary material(File)
File 499.5 KB