The Art of the Zinger: How Ad Hominem Attacks and Candidate Identities Affect Viewer Reactions to Political Debates

Abstract

What explains variation in viewer reactions to ad hominem attacks in political debates? Questions about the usefulness and ethical implications of personally attacking debate opponents have long existed in non-academic circles. However, political science scholarship has yet to produce empirical conclusions on this topic. Via an original online survey experiment of 335 respondents, I test incivility, humor, and gender as mechanisms for different reactions to ad hominem attacks in political debates. I theorize that attacks using incivility elicit negative reactions, attacks using humor elicit more positive reactions, and gender expectations penalize women candidates more heavily than their male counterparts for acting uncivilly. I find that uncivil attacks, humorous or not, elicit generally negative reactions from survey respondents. The nature and severity of these negative reactions vary based on the type of ad hominem attack a candidate uses. I also find that gender, surprisingly, has little if any impact on reactions to uncivil ad hominem attacks in my experiment. I recommend several methodological improvements to increase confidence in my results. Additionally, I suggest further investigations into the contexts in which uncivil rhetoric can backfire on political candidates.