Political Rhetoric Can Amplify Violent Attitudes

Two studies of interest were reported yesterday. A Michigan researcher demonstrated a clear relationship between violent speech and adoption of violent attitudes; and, An annual business survey revealed that repetition breeds trust. Together, these findings construct a crucial dynamic in political discourse.

Violent Speech Breeds Violent Attitudes

The University of Michigan reported that research by doctoral student Nathan Kalmoe shows that there is a clear negative impact of violent political rhetoric. With a series of surveys, Kalmoe examined the effects that changing some of the language (e.g., “fight” to “work”) had on how willing people are to adopt violent attitudes.

Participants read two anonymized texts (no subject, no target, no party affiliation) from political TV advertisements. Respondents were asked about their aggression levels and interest in violence against political leaders (N = 412). Essentially the same survey was conducted twice more throughout the year, except with only one text instead of two (N = 512) and then with the party affiliations revealed (N = 384). These studies were conducted prior to the 2010 mid-term elections, at least two months prior to the Arizona shooting that killed six people and critically injured U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Kalmoe concluded that those more prone to aggressive behavior became more likely to adopt violent attitudes about political figures. To a lesser degree, young people generally are more susceptible to this kind of priming. Party affiliation played no role in this effect.

The More You Hear

Add to Kalmoe’s work the findings of the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, released yesterday. The annual report gauges attitudes about the state of trust in business, government, NGOs, and media. The survey included over 5,000 college-educated participants in 23 countries, ranging from ages 25 to 64.

While much of the survey is focused on comparing the rise and fall of stated trust in different kinds of organizations, one question asks:

How many times in general do you need to hear something about a specific company to believe that information is likely to be true?

In response, 59% of participants indicated they would need to hear something 3-5 times for it to be true. One-fourth of sample didn’t even need that much repetition to trust the information they got.

Reputation of the source impacts how willing someone is to believe positive or negative information. When a company is distrusted, 57% will believe negative information after hearing it once or twice, but only 15% will believe the same amount of positive information. For trusted companies, only 25% believe negative information and 51% believe positive.

While agreeing with violent statements is not the same as conducting violent behavior—an important early claim by some in the aftermath of the Giffords shooting—aggressive rhetoric could still be a leading indicator of violent acts. Furthermore, hearing that kind of language from a trusted source makes it more likely that it will be believed. If that message is about not trusting another source, the rhetoric has effectively constructed another barrier to critical thought about opposing ideas.