Experiments reveal the psychological cost of insulting political rhetoric

Politicians frequently use aggressive, blaming language to mobilize voters and attack opponents. Recent psychological experiments reveal that exposure to this specific style of communication causes people to feel their core values are under attack, regardless of their own political affiliation. The findings, published in Current Psychology, show that polarizing rhetoric can directly degrade a person’s willingness to grant freedom of speech to political rivals.

Political communication has increasingly fractured into hostile territory over the last several years. Across the globe, various political leaders have found success by utilizing an unconventional, confrontational style of speaking. Researchers refer to this communication style as demagogic discourse.

Demagogic discourse typically relies on three specific elements. First, it attributes blame to specific groups, actively scapegoating and targeting them as threats. Second, it discards basic political etiquette by leveling personal, morally charged insults at opponents. Third, it attacks the foundational institutions of democracy, regularly accusing the free press of distributing fake news.

Many observers assume that this type of aggressive speech actively harms the social fabric. However, empirical tests of the psychological impact of such political language have been surprisingly scarce. Marcos Dono, a researcher at the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela in Spain, and his colleagues designed a series of experiments to test these assumptions.

The research team set out to determine if demagogic discourse directly causes two specific psychological reactions. First, they wanted to measure value threat, which occurs when people feel their fundamental moral principles are being menaced. Second, they measured political tolerance, defined in this context as a person’s willingness to allow their most disliked political opponents to exercise basic freedoms, like public speech.

In the first experiment, researchers recruited 310 residents of Spain. They presented these participants with realistic but fictional political news articles discussing housing regulations. Half the participants read a version where a politician delivered a moderate, dialogue-focused speech. The other half read a demagogic version filled with insults, attacks on the media, and aggressive rhetoric.

The researchers also manipulated the political leaning of the fictional politician. They did this to test whether the psychological effects depended on a participant sharing the politician’s ideology. Following the reading exercise, participants answered a series of psychological survey questions.

The results validated the researchers’ expectations. Exposure to the demagogic speech caused an increase in perceived value threat. Participants felt their core moral values were under attack. The demagogic speech also reduced political tolerance, making participants less willing to grant freedom of speech to their most disliked political group.

The researchers found that the ideological match between the participant and the politician produced no statistically significant difference in these outcomes. The aggressive speech threatened people regardless of whether they agreed with the politician’s broader political platform. For supporters, the speech successfully framed the opposition as a severe threat. For opponents, the hostility of the language itself felt menacing.

To expand their findings, the researchers conducted a second experiment in the United States with 309 participants. They adjusted the fictional news articles to fit the American political context. In these scenarios, a right-wing leader attacked the Black Lives Matter movement, or a left-wing leader attacked the Alt-Right movement.

This second study replicated the primary finding regarding value threat. Participants exposed to the demagogic discourse again felt a heightened sense of threat to their core values. The researchers controlled for the perceived complexity and positivity of the text, ensuring that the demagogic style itself caused the feelings of threat.

However, the demagogic speech in the second study did not yield a statistically significant drop in overall political tolerance. To understand this discrepancy, the researchers looked at a secondary variable they had measured: satisfaction with democracy. They found that a participant’s contentment with the current democratic system moderated their reaction to the aggressive speech.

For American participants who were generally satisfied with how democracy works, exposure to demagogic discourse decreased their political tolerance. These satisfied individuals likely viewed the aggressive rhetoric as problematic and reacted by wanting to suppress extreme voices.

Conversely, for participants who were highly dissatisfied with American democracy, the demagogic discourse actually seemed to slightly increase their tolerance of disliked groups. The researchers theorize that dissatisfied individuals may resonate with anti-establishment rhetoric. These individuals might prefer a lawless political arena where all rules of politeness are abandoned, leading them to grant extreme speech to others in hopes of securing the same right for themselves.

The team conducted a third experiment with 380 American participants to confirm these complex findings. In this final study, they ensured that all participants read a speech from a politician who matched their own ideology. They also divided the concept of value threat into three distinct categories: personal values, societal values, and democratic values.

Because participants were reading about a politician they generally agreed with, the researchers controlled for the participants’ baseline support for the leader. Once they accounted for this baseline support, the researchers found that the demagogic speech increased all three types of value threat. The aggressive text made people feel that their personal morals, society’s foundation, and the fabric of democracy were all in jeopardy.

The third study also perfectly replicated the intricate dynamic between political tolerance and satisfaction with democracy. Once again, individuals who liked the current state of democracy became less tolerant of opponents after reading the aggressive text. Those dissatisfied with the system did not show this restrictive reaction.

The research team provided a few caveats for their work. The experiments relied on a single, isolated exposure to a short political text. In the real world, citizens experience repeated and prolonged exposure to political rhetoric. Sustained exposure could potentially amplify these psychological responses, or it could lead to emotional habituation over time.

Additionally, the studies took place in two Western democracies. The researchers note that cultural norms regarding politeness and civic obedience vary widely across the globe. Demagogic discourse might produce completely different psychological reactions in East Asian countries or in nations with recent histories of authoritarian rule.

Future investigations might also explore different ways to measure political tolerance. While restricting free speech is a solid indicator of intolerance, the American two-party system often forces participants to direct their answers at mainstream political rivals rather than fringe extremist groups. Customizing tolerance metrics for specific political landscapes could yield different insights.

Ultimately, the experiments suggest that hostile political communication is not just empty posturing. When leaders use language that insults opponents, scapegoats groups, and attacks democratic institutions, they actively alter the psychological state of the electorate. This communication style succeeds in making the public feel deeply threatened, creating a hostile environment where democratic compromise becomes increasingly difficult to achieve.

The study, “Examining psychological effects of demagogic discourse on perceived threat and political intolerance,” was authored by Marcos Dono, Chantal D’Amore, Mónica Alzate, Marco Brambilla, Martijn van Zomeren, and José Manuel Sabucedo.