Partisan language in a polarized world: In-group language provides reputational benefits to speakers while polarizing audiences.

Abstract

We examine the impact of partisan language (i.e., language that describes events in a manner that supports a political agenda), both with regard to peoples' perceptions of the speakers who use it and their evaluations of the events it is used to describe. In two experiments, we recruited 1121 Democrats and Republicans from the United States. Using a set of liberal-biased (e.g., expand voting rights) and conservative-biased (e.g., reduce election security) terms, we find that partisans judge speakers describing polarizing events using ideologically-congruent language as more trustworthy than those describing events in a non-partisan way (e.g., expand mail-in voting). However, when presented to rival partisans, ideologically-biased language promoted negative evaluations of opposing partisans, with speakers attributed out-group language being viewed as far less trustworthy than non-partisan speakers. Furthermore, presenting Democrats and Republicans with ideologically-congruent descriptions of political events polarized their attitudes towards the events described. Overall, the present investigation reveals how partisan language, while praised by co-partisans, can damage trust and amplify disagreement across political divides.