Abstract
This online experiment examined how participants (1,831 Twitter users in the U.S.) would perceive a conversation on Twitter between two politicians, a Democrat and a Republican, as they debate the merits of a climate policy. We manipulated whether politicians were civil versus uncivil, and uninformative versus informative, in their tweets. Neither the civility nor informativeness of tweets impacted participants’ support for climate policy. However, participants reported learning more, viewed politicians more favorably, and generally viewed arguments as stronger, when politicians were civil. Higher informativeness increased perceived learning, and in some cases, also increased perceived strength of the politicians’ arguments. These effects did not differ by the political orientation of the participant.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
