Do political insults pay off? New research shows what politicians actually gain from divisive political rhetoric
By Renée LaReau
image:
Marc Jacob, assistant professor of democracy and global affairs in the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. A political scientist, Jacob studies political behavior, public opinion and institutional change.
view moreCredit: University of Notre Dame
Amid widespread concern that American political discourse has become less substantive and less civil, often devolving into personal insults, the question of why political elites engage in divisive rhetoric has continued to puzzle the public.
A new study co-authored by University of Notre Dame political scientist Marc Jacob offers a provocative explanation: The answer, quite simply, is media attention.
“The core finding is clear,” Jacob said. “Personal attacks are strongly associated with greater media coverage but show no correlation with fundraising, vote margins, legislative success or personal wealth.”
Developed within the Polarization Research Lab, a research initiative studying political division in the U.S. and around the world, the study was published by PNAS Nexus, a publication of the National Academy of Sciences. Its authors introduce the concept of the “conflict entrepreneur” — a legislator who disproportionately levels personal attacks on the integrity, morality or intellect of their peers.
“Usually when we think about conflict in politics, it’s about political parties and candidates disagreeing on issues to discuss them and arrive at a compromise,” said Jacob, assistant professor of democracy and global affairs in the Keough School of Global Affairs. “But we are seeing an increasing trend that is not about policy anymore. Conflict takes the form of personal attacks, a new communication style that is shaping democratic politics.”
To map the concept of a conflict entrepreneur, the researchers conducted a large-scale descriptive analysis of the 118th U.S. Congress, which convened from January 3, 2023, to January 3, 2025. They linked a dataset of 2.2 million public statements — ranging from floor speeches and press releases to newsletters and social media posts — to records of media coverage, campaign finance and electoral outcomes. Using a large language model, the team systematically distinguished between legitimate “critical debate” on policy and personal attacks on character.
The researchers found an asymmetric pattern: While personal attacks occur in both parties, they are delivered 2.7 times more frequently by Republicans than by Democrats. Personal attacks also occur 1.3 times more frequently in the House of Representatives than in the Senate.
The most striking finding, however, is the disconnect between an antagonistic rhetorical style and traditional political success, Jacob said.
A legislator who devotes just 5 percent of their communication to personal attacks receives a level of cable news coverage comparable to a colleague dedicating 45 percent of their time to substantive policy debate. For context, the paper notes that the 25 most combative members of Congress receive more cable news attention than the 75 least combative members combined. On social media, posts containing personal insults are shared far more frequently than those focusing on critical policy debate, an average of 606 reposts versus 244.
This high visibility in the media, however, appears to exact a legislative price: The more frequently a member of Congress uses personal attacks, the less likely they are to engage in policy discussion. In addition, conflict entrepreneurs are less likely to co-sponsor legislation and receive fewer assignments to prestigious standing committees.
“These findings suggest that politicians are using the attacks as a strategy to become part of the national political debate without relying on conventional means of legislative work and policymaking,” Jacob said.
The study also challenges the assumption that incivility is a reflection of a legislator’s polarized district: The authors found no correlation between a legislator’s use of personal insults and the baseline partisan animosity in their constituency. In fact, many of the most abrasive legislators come from districts with comparatively moderate electorates. This finding suggests that for a small cohort of elites, a politician’s primary career goal is not the traditional trifecta of reelection, policy influence or institutional power, but media celebrity. As a retired member of Congress noted in a quote used in the paper, “The most recent additions to Congress don’t care about policy; they care about getting attention.”
This dynamic, where visibility is decoupled from political accountability, poses a significant threat to democratic norms, according to the researchers. They conclude that the primary incentive structure is maintained by a media attention economy that prioritizes conflict.
“Most of the communications made by legislators are focused on policy,” Jacob said. “But it is fair to say there is an overemphasis by the media, which unduly covers legislators who attack others. This attention incentivizes people to engage in incivility if the only way to break through is with insults.”
The researchers’ conclusion is both a warning and a call to action: If left unchecked, the corrosive nature of conflict entrepreneurs may continue to erode democratic discourse.
“Political party leadership and media gatekeepers have a central role to play in shifting the incentive structure,” Jacob said. “It’s time to reward those who advance policy and to stop promoting personal attacks as political entertainment, and the media should reflect on what is truly newsworthy. The health and stability of American democracy depend on it.”
The study was co-authored by Yphtach Lelkes of the University of Pennsylvania and Sean J. Westwood of Dartmouth College.
Contact: Tracy DeStazio, assistant director of media relations, 574-631-9958 or tdestazi@nd.ed
Journal
PNAS Nexus
Method of Research
Data/statistical analysis
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Entrepreneurs of conflict: A descriptive analysis of when and how political elites use divisive rhetoric
Article Publication Date
17-Mar-2026
Is information or motivation to blame for partisan beliefs?
Partisanship, whether you support a particular person, group, or cause, has long been known as a key factor in misinformed beliefs—from COVID-19 to Brexit. But how does partisanship drive bias and misinformation? Is it because people of different parties consume different media? Or are we motivated to be biased?
“This is an age-old debate in social psychology … whether something is due to basic cognitive processes or motivational processes,” said Tyler Hubeny, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin. In a new study published in Psychological Science, Hubeny and his colleagues put these two competing theories to the test.
The new study sought to test a common argument that partisan bias arises from differential knowledge. In this theory, researchers frame partisan bias as a byproduct of the information ecosystem, where people of different party allegiances are exposed to different news sources, leading to differing knowledge bases and conclusions. But the flip side—and a more daunting cause of misinformation—is that partisan bias exists because people’s desires influence how they determine whether information is true or false.
“The aim was to try and test that and rule it out and say, well, if we completely take away the differences in prior beliefs, do we still see evidence of partisan bias? And if we do, then it probably is due to that motivational explanation,” Hubeny said.
The new study focused on the United States, where Hubeny and his colleagues recruited over 600 American citizens through an online portal. Instead of using a person’s existing political partisanship, such as Democrat or Republican, the researchers randomly split the participants into Team Spain, Team Greece, or No Team.
“We basically gave them this phony personality test, kind of like the ones you would see on Buzzfeed,” Hubeny explained. The test asked a series of personality questions, which determined the group the participant belonged in. By randomly assigning participants to teams, the researchers were able to eliminate any differences in knowledge that might have existed.
After a participant was given their assigned group, researchers then asked them to judge whether a series of statements were true or false. Some of the statements were favorable to Spain (e.g., “Spain has produced more Nobel Prize winners than Greece”), while others were favorable to Greece. The researchers then analyzed the responses using a method called signal detection theory, which allowed them to measure the participants’ truth sensitivity (how well a participant can distinguish true and false information) and acceptance thresholds (how often they would reject information in general).
The researchers found that even with the random teams, there was a partisan effect in how people determined the truthfulness of the information. This effect was present not because of any differences in knowledge, but because their arbitrary party identity shifted their acceptance thresholds.
“People were more accepting of the information that was congenial toward their randomly assigned team, and less accepting when that information was uncongenial toward their randomly assigned team,” Hubeny said. Therefore, the study supports the theory that partisan bias can exist because of motivational processes, outside of differential knowledge.
These findings have implications for misinformation interventions. “Oftentimes, when we’re talking about misinformation and partisan bias or polarization, we think we all just need to get on the same page information-wise,” Hubeny said. However, the findings from this study show that the penchant to believe false information, or reject the truth, has more complex cognitive origins. It’s not just about “having the facts,” they wrote.
Hubeny noted there aren’t many effective interventions that target the motivated-reasoning side of partisan bias. To seek new approaches, future research should look at why people are motivated to seek out false information related to their partisanship and dig into the specific cognitive mechanisms behind these biases.
“If we can try and pin down exactly what’s going on in motivated reasoning, then hopefully we can develop tools that will be better able to address this source of partisan bias,” Hubeny said.
Reference
Hubeny, T. J., Nahon, L. S., & Gawronski, B. (2026). Understanding partisan bias in judgments of misinformation: Identity protection versus differential knowledge. Psychological Science, 37(1), 43–54.
Journal
Psychological Science
Article Title
Understanding Partisan Bias in Judgments of Misinformation: Identity Protection Versus Differential Knowledge
No comments:
Post a Comment