Case Crawford

Com 320

12-8-23

How Does Political Polarization Effect Incivility on Twitter

Literature Review

On January 1, 1983, the internet was created, since then technological advancement has

had its day in the sun for quite some time in society, but that is not without downsides. At its

inception, social media was the upgrade of the telephone. It was created to connect people

through geographical barriers around the world. Social media sites such as Facebook and

Myspace were the beginning of this media form. These sites attached a name to a profile and

allowed people to share with their friends what was happening in their lives. However, this

technological advancement was never utilized as effectively by the generations that did not

grow up with social media. As this form of media began to grow it introduced itself to Gen Z and

took on a new form. Face-to-face or traditional communication differs from computer-based

communications due to the of body language and social cues. It is speculated that the

introduction of computer-based communication has led to a decrease in physical interaction.

However, the internet is more populated than ever, and social interactions that happened

physically are now occurring online. Incivility in politics has been a subject of debate for decades

and has changed from small instances of incivility by political actors, to the use of incivility as a

winning tactic. With the introduction of a new social environment that does not require a

physical presence, does the lack of physical communication and accountability increase the use

of incivility online?
 The basis of this study requires some definition. Polarization can refer to the divergence

of political attitudes to ideological extremes (ECPS). What this means is the divergences of

political actors from close to the middle of the political spectrum, to the far right or far left.

Since polarization has been defined, Incivility is the second aspect. Incivility is defined as rude or

unsociable speech or behavior by the Oxford Dictionary. Incivility can be considered a general

form of cyberbullying but can utilize several subsections of cyberbullying such as racism, body

shaming, or harassment that is intended to disrespect the victim of the incivility. Polarization is

a cause of incivility when it comes to politics due to the heightened emotional state that

accompanies political discussion. While incivility can occur outside of social media, it is more

effective on social media sites. This is due to the perpetrator being able to use anonymity on

social media to hide physical attributes that can be used to enforce social accountability.

Polarizing statements made by political actors coupled with the use of anonymity on social

media is what makes incivility a large problem in society. Anonymity is defined by the Oxford

Dictionary as the lack of outstanding, individual, or unusual features. The use of emails, phone

numbers, and profiles attached to your name have all served as functions to communicate with

peers, friends, and family. Without looking deeper into how people communicate online, many

would infer that Internet-based communication was created similarly to face-to-face

communication. According to Christie & Dill (2016), “One of the potential differences between

Computer-Mediated Communication and face-to-face communication that draws the most

attention in the literature is anonymity”. Generally, social media sites force users to identify

themselves through the use of emails, names, and a profile picture, however, users can give

false information. As outlined by Christie & Dill (2016), there are three levels of anonymity
associated with computer-mediated communication. “Visual anonymity is the most common

type found in CMC, wherein one's physical characteristics are hidden although other identifying

information is known. Pseudonymity exists when people use avatars or usernames as indicators

of their online identity. Full anonymity is said to exist “where users remain unknowable after

interaction has concluded” (Christie, Dill, 2016). Pseudonymity is the most common form as it

offers a sense of detachment from real-world consequences and accountability associated with

their profile. Without the threat of real-world consequences, users can post, comment, or share

what they believe in. “Anonymity may cause Internet users to feel unaccountable for their

negative actions, as they cannot be identified as the perpetrators of certain actions or

behaviors. This loss of accountability may result in an increased level of toxic disinhibition,

consequently promoting impulsive, aggressive, and abusive behaviors” (Lapidot-Lefler, Barak,

2012). The hassle-free form of aggression helps cultivate ideas of harmful actions against users

of the opposite beliefs than the anonymous perpetrator. Once it is understood that anonymity is

inherently attached to online communication, the concept of online infrastructure forms the

link between cyberbullying and perceived anonymity.

Polarization has been in politics for decades, McCarthys views on communism in the

1950s or Nixon’s war against the press are forms of political polarization due to the extreme

ideology associated with each political actor. The change in polarization comes in the form of

openness and large audience reach that political actors have due to social media. In relation to

how polarization is utilized, Ross and Caldwell (2020, Pg. 3) noted this about the use of leading

questions “Typically, this choice is made to open up the possibility for alternative dialogic

positions or to establish a relationship of concurrence, where his use of leading questions is

intended to point toward what he sees as an obvious answer, with no alternative” (Ross &

Caldwell, 2020). While using leading questions is not inherently bad, the topic of the leading

question leads to polarization. If a political actor frames the topic of immigration reform as an

obvious bad idea, this leads supporters on the opposite side of the issue to anger. The use of

emotions in politics is a strategy to force supporters to talk about the issues that the political

actor wants to run on or against. “Trump tweets as a means to not only circumvent the news

media, but to command attention and set the contours of what is discussed each time he sends

a tweet” (Bratslavsky, Carpenter, & Zompetti, 2020, Pg. 2). Political actors will post negative

messages pointed in the direction of their opposition to bolster support within their subsections

of supporters. Donald Trump has posted hurtful messages about immigrants, Chinese people,

and women. These messages are not intended to garner support from people who support

those sub-sections of the demographic but to bolster support from the demographics that

already support him. “Despite the sexual misconduct allegations. In particular, being

conservative, Republican, male, White, and religious increased the likelihood of providing more

favorable responses toward Trump than unfavorable responses” (Kulig, Cullen, & Haner, 2019,

Pg. 6). What this statement shows regarding allegations of misconduct, Is that saying negative

statements lengthens the divide between each side on the politic spectrum. If a political actor

can create hate on each side, then they can play the victim and the perpetrator. When a

politician receives backlash, they can either apologize or they can double down and paint the

picture as if they are being treated inhumanely by the opposition and that is why they must

continue to fight for their supporters’ beliefs.

 Incivility has grown on social media due to the rise of anonymity and polarization. This

problem is exacerbated by the growing divide between each political party and the lack of social

consequences if someone engages in hateful rhetoric. Political actors have been able to grow

their brand and are emboldened by the perceived support of their party. This creates a trickle-

down effect of hateful speech by supporters of each party. If a well-known figure is willing to

toe the line of sinister rhetoric without social consequences, users of social media who can hide

behind a pseudonymous profile feel as if they can spout out hateful speech without any

disruptions in their personal lives. The solution to heightened instances of incivility in politics

lies in a multifaceted approach that combines technological, educational, and social

interventions. Social media platforms must take proactive measures to reduce the cloak of

anonymity by enforcing stricter guidelines and penalties for abusive behavior. Educating users

about the psychological implications of incivility can create awareness, fostering a collective

commitment to responsible online conduct. While the digital realm presents incredible

opportunities for connectivity and self-expression, it also poses significant challenges. Incivility,

fueled by anonymity, is one such challenge. By addressing this issue head-on, we can strive to

create a more inclusive, empathetic, and safe online environment for all. The road ahead may

be challenging, but the research and insights explored in this literature review pave the way for

a more informed and conscientious approach to tackling cyberbullying and the harms of

anonymity on social media.

Description

Social media is defined by Merriam-Webster as “forms of electronic communication,

such as websites for social networking and microblogging, through which users create online
communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as

videos)”. Social media has begun taking over a majority stake in entertainment and

communication sectors in the United States according to Pew Research Center. PRC states that

“72% of Americans in 2019 were part of some form of social media, which is a jump from five

percent in 2005” (Pew Research Center). There are a handful of popular social media sites such

as Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat. These forms of social media

share characteristics such as having a profile and being able to share ideas or personal

messages. These social media networks were fortified in our society with the introduction of

innovative technology such as the iPhone and a wider range of network infrastructure

(Maryville University). Considering the large immigration of people to social networks virtually,

influential people play a large role in the social construct of social media. Lee et al, (2022) stated

that the “growth of influencers on social media hinges on the premise that individuals’ selection

and utilization of media are goal-directed behaviors to satisfy distinct social and psychological

needs” (p. 3). This theoretical premise asserts that influencers directly sway users of the app

one way or the other based on the psychological needs gained from the information presented

by the influencer. If a user with a larger following posts about the Pro-Life movement, users will

interact with the picture, or post in a way that fulfills their social or psychological needs. Since

social media is inherently social, some actions or ideas have started in traditional

communication, that have bled into our social media networks. Convenience is the changing

aspect of social media as opposed to traditional communication, but that is not without its

downsides. If it is easier to show love, it is equally easier to show hate.

 In the age of technology, social media reigns king. Corporations that will define the

future of society run or market on social media, Politicians advocate on social media, and

citizens get their news or information through social media. This is why the social networks that

have been created are important when understanding the exceptional and unexceptional

aspects of society. When thinking about social media sites, one that comes to mind is Twitter. In

2006, Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams created Twitter. This new site was

created as a microblogging service where you could only use 280 characters in a single tweet

(Hetler, 2023). What started as an idea between 4 individuals created an encompassing social

network that has connected people through geographical and language barriers. By 2012

Twitter had amassed 100 million users and 340 million tweets daily (Hetler, 2023). In the

following seven years leading up to 2019, Twitter was one of the top ten most visited websites,

filed for an IPO, and more than doubled its active users to 330 million (Hetler, 2023). In 2022

Elon Musk bought the large social media site for 44 billion dollars. There can be many

observable thoughts as to why Twitter was so expensive to acquire, one is the large framework

that allows for social justice movements to occur. Twitter has become a large catalyst for a social

movement that provides a platform for marginalized voices. Hashtags such as

#BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #HousingAsAHumanRight have catapulted these social justice

movements firmly onto the national stage. The rise in social movements on Twitter should not

be a surprise when considering the high usage by political actors, pundits, and governing bodies

on Twitter. Twitter is a social networking site that has a large upside in society, but with each

action, there is a reaction. There is a large amount of incivility that populated the comment

section of polarizing tweets.

Donald Trump

In 2016 Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential campaign. The

campaign race was tight and uncivil, forcing polarization on both sides of the spectrum. The two

candidates for the presidential nod used an array of rhetorical strategies to bolster their

following. Trump is vehemently on the right side of the spectrum and to some the perfect

spokesperson for the Republican party. While his fans see him as the key to ‘Making America

Great Again’, others are put off by his brash and unapologetic way of speaking. Trump is in the

running for the largest publicized president in United States history. His rants on Twitter coupled

with volatile rhetoric on key issues is why many Americans believe he is a polarizing figure in the

political sphere.

Social media has influenced the United States political communication in a way that has

not been seen before. Trump was one of the catalysts in this transformation. Political

communication has been used in newspapers, television, and now on mobile devices. The age

of Twitter has begun, and political messages have started to transform. The use of Twitter adds

a key element that has been underutilized; it is engagement. Supporters can now reply to a

tweet with their thoughts; however, political actors rarely respond to their supporters. In an

article detailing the changing message strategy, engagement with supporters is a double-edged

sword. “Campaigns wish to mobilize the public in the service of the campaign, but getting too

close to them, really listening and empowering them, is dangerous and at least

disadvantageous” (Enli, 2017). The slogan ‘Make America Great Again’ is how Trump mobilizes

his audience without having to engage with them on a personal level. The slogan is meant to

fight for a cause and is a blanket statement overarching his key issues as the reason why
America is not great in its current state. The utilization of the slogan in its use on Twitter serves

a singular purpose, which is impulsivity from his supporters. Political tweets are used to

weaponize supporters against their main antagonist. “Tweets are often sparked by an affective

charge, a charge that they transfer through the social network since emotionally charged

Twitter messages tend to be retweeted more often and more quickly compared to neutral ones”

(Ott, 2017). Trump is excellent at crafting emotionally charged messages without engaging with

his audience. This is an aspect of his political polarization because he creates an army of

supporters backed by the idea that they are fighting for the betterment of our nation. How is

the general public supposed to act whenever their president is hurling uncivil comments toward

political opposition?

Donald Trump has an array of divisive comments on women, immigration, and foreign

policy. His polarizing comments have served to divide the political spectrum and frame his

political campaigns as an us versus them argument. This can be seen in his campaign slogans

“Make America Great Again” and “Clear the Swamp”. What these slogans provide is a common

saying that his supporters can rally behind. However, when looking at the comments on his

posts it is not only his supporters rallying behind him, it is users with opposite views slinging

uncivil comments his way. In a tweet by Trump saying “The lockdowns in democrat run states

are absolutely ruining the lives of so many people- far more that the damage that would be

caused by the China Virus” (Trump, 2020). While there is incivility started by Trump by referring

to COVID-19 as the ‘China Virus’, the magnitude of hurtful comments is alarming. One of these

comments is “You are directly responsible for more than 300,000 Americans. For all the various

reasons for which you should be locked up in prison for the rest of your miserable life, that is
the most important one. Your place in history is that of a deadly tyrant”. The reason why this is

an important interaction to look at is because of the tweet. The commentator was a white

middle-aged woman. This means that the improper use of ‘China Virus’ was less of a reason for

her to comment. The reason why this particular user commented was because she felt

disrespected by Trump placing sole blame on the party she aligned with. What this shows is that

supporters on both sides of the spectrum are far less worried about the actual topics and are

more geared toward the topics that they believe in. While there is incivility taking place under

popular political actors' accounts, they are unorganized and range between several different

topics or perceived miscalculations by the political actor. Lee et al, (2022) stated that “growth of

influencers on social media hinges on the premise that individuals’ selection and utilization of

media are goal-directed behaviors to satisfy distinct social and psychological needs” (p.3). The

correlation between the user's social or psychological needs and the incivility in political

discourse on Twitter is emotional. In the aforementioned tweet from Donald Trump under the

comment left by a user on the site, another user waited three years to come back and comment

“How do you feel about your tweet now Cheri”. Both of these users commented to fulfill a social

need to feel morally superior to the other. Politics is an inherently emotional sector, however, in

recent years supporters are louder and more uncivil to each other than ever.

AOC

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born on October 13, 1989, in the Bronx, New York City.

Ocasio-Cortez is from a Puerto Rican heritage and she comes from a working-class family that

struggled to make ends meet growing up. She excelled academically growing up which opened

the doors of Boston University where she attended. Ocasio-Cortez obtained her degree in
economics and international relations. After graduation, she was an organizer for Bernie

Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. Two years after her work for Sanders, she defeated Joe

Crowley for the primary bid. Ocasio-Cortez would go on to win the general election and became

the youngest woman elected to serve in Congress at the age of 29.

When understanding the root of incivility on Twitter it is important to look for the

common denominator. The source of people’s information typically comes from social media.

Immigration reform is an issue that Oscasio-Cortez and Donald Trump have spoken about

regularly and in some cases uncivilly. Does the use of rhetorical strategies and incivility by

political actors create an inflammatory environment? In the case of immigration, name-calling is

frequently used to win support for policy. Donald Trump brought national media attention to

immigration when announcing his presidential campaign. When discussing the issue, uncivil

behavior continues to increase on both sides of the issue. Ocasio-Cortez tweets “Stephen Miller

must resign. Now. Each day we allow a white nationalist to be in charge of U.S. immigration

policy is a day where thousands of children and families lives are in danger” (Ocasio-Cortez,

2019). Ad hominem fallacies are used to deface and verbally attack opponents as opposed to

attacking the argument (Zompetti, pg 8). Ocasio-Cortez uses the term white nationalist when

describing Miller to deface his reputation. This divisive political rhetoric allows uninformed

citizens to join the bandwagon of moral objectivity. Fallacies that villainize political opponents

are used by both sides of the political spectrum. Trump stated on Twitter “Can you imagine

Cryin’ Chuck Schumer saying out loud, for all to hear, that I am bluffing with respect to putting

Tariffs on Mexico” (Trump, 2019). Ad Hominem attacks such as these, stray away from a

legislative conversation and emphasize the weakness of character by their opponent, true or
not. The increasing rate of incivility from Congressional members can be attributed to increased

engagement (Ballard et al., 2022). Noted in the study about Incivility in Congressional Tweets

that incivility was most often used when the politician was politically opposed to the policy

mentioned. This is seen by both Trump and Ocasio-Cortez when talking about immigration

policy. This is a potent rhetorical strategy because it villainizes the other side and brings moral

subjectivity into the equation. The argument by both sides is rooted in utilitarianism.

Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez is without a doubt one of the rising political actor brands on

Twitter, she boasts a 13.2 million audience. She has been an outspoken voice for several social

justice programs such as Medicare for all, housing as a human right, and immigration reform

(oscasiocortez.com). Polarization accompanies popularity on Twitter. Typically, when seeing

incivility on Twitter, users will default to an ad hominem attack. This is observed in a tweet by

Oscasio-Cortez stating “Targeting trans children for playing sports makes all women, whether

trans or cisgender, less safe sex. Sex testing is a regressive, invasive, discriminatory, and

fundamental violation of our privacy as women and as Americans ” (Oscasio-Cortez, 2023).

While the idea of transgenderism is a hot-button topic and many users were commenting about

the issue, there was still incivility by the general public. One user commented “I like how you

make up terms to try and sound smart”. This was followed by another comment stating “You’re

a shameful sell-out. I cannot believe I ever thought you would do good”. This comment spiraled

into a thirty-comment-long thread talking about how horrible Oscasio-Cortez and the

Democratic party are. The interesting aspect of incivility originating from users on Twitter is that

each tweet varies on which demographic is uncivil in the comments. One tweet’s comments can

be filled with supporters who then receive hateful comments from supporters on the opposite
side of the spectrum. Furthermore, a tweet that is posted less than a day after the first will be

filled with supporters opposite of the political actor hurling hateful comments.

Both Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez and Donald Trump are polarizing figures who are

prominently in the heat of political battle. They have both garnered massive quantities of

followers who believe in what they stand for. Social media is an impactful aspect of political

discourse and has created large amounts of engagement from supporters on each side of the

political spectrum. However, without social consequences and a large community to align with

public incivility has increased.

Analysis

Social media has transformed how societies interact, this can be seen everywhere.

Coffee shops filled with people on their phones, classrooms where students can look up any

news story they want, or people walking on the sidewalk engrossed in their phones. This change

from traditional communication methods to a virtual environment where body language ceases

to matter has confounding effects on the interactions that arise daily. This change of

communication can be seen in cyberbullying, instead of harming physically, people will log into

a profile on a social media site and spew hateful language at strangers who have opposing

views. The themes that are prevalent within the scope of incivility on Twitter are centered

around cyberbullying. To continuously comment on hateful ideas and speech you either need to

have a group supporting you or be unrecognizable. This is what is seen in the political sphere on

Twitter. Political actors such as Trump and Oscasio-Cortez will post inflammatory statements

that allow the general public to agree or disagree in then turn on the users that do not agree

with them. This form of communication relies on the user receiving a social or psychological
need. The reason that the general public should be worried about incivility on Twitter from

political actors and their supporters is that there is no middle ground. Polarization has forced

the American public into their respective corners and the problem is framed as us versus. When

there is a loss of common ground extremist ideologies flourish in environments of political

polarization. People may resort to more extreme options if they feel excluded or disillusioned by

the political discourse of the mainstream. There's a chance that this trend will stop political

discourse and spark radicalism, violence, or a rejection of democratic values. This problem that

stems from political incivility begins with the loss of constructive conversations. One major

consequence of political polarization is the erosion of civil discourse. As ideological divisions

deepen, individuals often find it challenging to engage in constructive conversations with those

holding opposing views. This communication breakdown inhibits the exchange of ideas,

compromises, and the ability to find common ground, undermining the core principles of

democracy. Furthermore, polarization contributes to legislative gridlock and hampers the

functioning of government institutions. With lawmakers entrenched in partisan ideologies, the

ability to pass bipartisan legislation diminishes. The result is a government that struggles to

address critical issues, leaving policy challenges unattended and eroding public trust in the

political system.

Further Research

Incivility has been a part of society for years and is an interesting topic to delve into.

What makes incivility a deep topic to research is the contributing factors that cause the rise of

incivility. The change in American values, the rise of social media, the evolution of campaigning

efforts and tactics, how anonymity lessens the effects of social consequences, the list can go on
and on. Polarization and anonymity are part of the foundation of incivility. Looking into the

tactics that politicians use to garner support helps us understand the magnitude of polarization

in America. When there is no common area for each side of the political spectrum people tend

to just go after each other. The media has an influence on perceptions of polarization and

incivility and could be an excellent area to study. The sheer amount of news networks that

inform our population can inform or misinform our general public. The large consequences of

mental health issues that originate from cyberbullying are an important aspect to look into. It is

important to understand the effect of incivility on social media when it pertains to politics and

the mental health issues that are correlated to the abuse faced when voicing an opinion.

Regarding the media in this study, Twitter, looking into the role that algorithms play in dictating

what each user sees on their feed and how it affects different demographics being introduced to

posts opposing their beliefs. Looking into how users are introduced to content, whether it's

following certain accounts or recommended by the site, is vital to understanding the virtual

environment that Twitter is.

Conclusion

There are many contributing factors that have led to an increase in hostility on social

media. This is seen in the political discourse that is on Twitter. Whether it is a political actor or

one of their supporters, hateful interactions arise. The emotional aspect of political policy and

the discussion that happen along with them have turned politics into a war ground. There is a

lack of a middle ground when discussing politics and this has serious consequences that could

be widespread through the political sphere. Social media is a great tool and source of

information, but it can be used in negative ways that bring the worst out of people.
 References:

Ballard, Andrew, Ryan DeTamble, Spencer Dorsey, Michael Heseltine, and Marcus Johnson.

“Incivility in Congressional Tweets.” American politics research 50, no. 6 (2022): 769–

780.

Bratslavsky, Carpenter, N., & Zompetti, J. (2020). Twitter, incivility, and presidential

communication: A theoretical incursion into spectacle and power. Cultural Studies

(London, England), 34(4), 593–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2019.1656760

Christie, C., & Dill, E. (2016). Evaluating peers in cyberspace: The impact of anonymity.

Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.024

Demographics of Social Media Users and Adoption in the United States. (2023). Pew

Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-

sheet/social-media/#find-out-more

Enli. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of

Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of

Communication (London), 32(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682802

Hertler, Amanda. (2023) What is Twitter. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/Twitter

#:~:text=History%20of%20Twitter,the%20public%20in%20July%202006.

Kulig, Cullen, F. T., & Haner, M. (2019). President or Predator? The Social Construction of Donald

Trump in a Divided America. Victims & Offenders, 14(8), 940–964.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1671285

Lee, J. A., Sudarshan, S., Sussman, K. L., Bright, L. F., & Eastin, M. S. (2022). Why are
 consumers following social media influencers on Instagram? Exploration of consumers’

motives for following influencers and the role of materialism. International Journal of

Advertising, 41(1), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1964226

Ott. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies

in Media Communication, 34(1), 59–68.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686

Political Polarization - ECPS. (n.d.). ECPS. https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/

political-polarization/

Ross, & Caldwell, D. (2020). “Going negative”: An APPRAISAL analysis of the rhetoric of

Donald Trump on Twitter. Language & Communication, 70, 13–27.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003

Zompetti, Joseph P. (2018) Divisive Discourse : the Extreme Rhetoric of Contemporary American

Politics. First edition. San Diego, CA: Cognella Academic Publishing, 2015.