Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
Vol. 6:1 (2018) ► pp.127–148

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Effects of gender and verbal aggression on perceptions of U.S. political speakers

 | Bazaarvoice, Germany
 | University of Memphis, USA
Published online: 2 July 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00006.nau
Abstract
Two experiments tested whether male and female political speakers in the United States are judged differently when they use verbal attacks. Participants read eight short excerpts of political speeches, half of which contained character and competence attacks (the other half without such attacks), and half of which were attributed to a female speaker (the other half a male speaker), and rated these in terms of agreement with the message, and perceptions of credibility, appropriateness, and aggressiveness. In both experiments, messages containing verbally aggressive attacks resulted in less perceived credibility and appropriateness, and these negative effects were consistent regardless of the speaker’s gender. In Experiment 1, women tended to penalize aggressive speakers more so than did men, suggesting the men are less sensitive to verbal aggression in their evaluations of political speakers. However, women tended to perceive non-aggressive female speakers as more aggressive than male speakers. Most of these interaction effects were not replicated in Experiment 2.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Negative campaigning and aggressive communication
    • 1.2Gender and use of negative campaign tactics
    • 1.3The present studies
  • 2.Experiment 1
    • 2.1Rationale and hypotheses
    • 2.2Method
    • 2.3Materials
    • 2.4Participants and procedure
    • 2.5Dependent measures
    • 2.6Results and discussion
  • 3.Experiment 2
    • 3.1Rationale and hypotheses
    • 3.2Method
      • 3.2.1Design, materials and manipulation check
      • 3.2.2Participants and procedure
      • 3.2.3Results and discussion
  • 4.Effects of participant gender
  • 5.General discussion
  • References
References (49)
References
Aalberg, Toril, and Anders Todal Jenssen. 2007. “Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates: An Experimental Study of Political Communication.” Nordicom Review 281: 17–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson, and D. M. Bates. 2008. “Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items.” Journal of Memory and Language 591: 390–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bandwart, Mary C. 2010. “Gender and Candidate Communication: Effects of Stereotypes in the 2008 Election.” American Behavioral Scientist 541: 265–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, William L., and William T. Wells. 1996. Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Gregory A. Huber, and Gabriel S. Lenz. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 201: 351–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 61: 3–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Pam Wells. 2012. “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 311: 30–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burgoon, Michael, and R. S. Klingle. 1998. “Gender Differences in Being Influential and/or Influenced: A Challenge to Prior Explanations.” In Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction edited by Daniel J. Canary and Kathryn Dindia, 257–285. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2003. “Gender and Language Ideologies.” In The Handbook of Language and Gender, edited by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 447–467. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carli, Linda L. 2001. “Gender and Social Influence.” Journal of Social Issues 571: 725–741. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carraro, Luciana, and Luigi Castelli. 2010. “The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is the Source Really Blamed?” Political Psychology 311: 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carraro, Luciana, Bertram Gawronski, and Luigi Castelli. 2010. “Losing on All Fronts: The Effects of Negative versus Positive Person-based Campaigns on Implicit and Explicit Evaluations of Political Candidates.” The British Journal of Social Psychology 491: 453–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlin, Diana B., and Kelly L. Winfrey. 2009. “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies 601: 326–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2016. “Women in Elective Office 2016.” Accessed January 24, 2017. [URL].
Chang, Chingching, and Jacqueline C. Bush Hitchon. 2004. “When Does Gender Count? Further Insights into Gender Schematic Processing of Female Candidates’ Political Advertisements.” Sex Roles 511: 197–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dinzes, Deborah, Michael D. Cozzens, and George G. Manross. 1994. “The Role of Gender in ‘Attack Ads’: Revisiting Negative Political Advertising.” Communication Research Reports 111: 67–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates & Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downs, Valerie C., Linda L. Kaid, and Sandra Ragan. 1990. “The Impact of Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression on Communicator Image: The Exchange between George Bush and Dan Rather.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 541: 99–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, Chad, and Scott A. Myers. 2007. “Perceived Instructor Credibility as a Function of Instructor Aggressive Communication.” Communication Research Reports 261: 47–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Georgalidou, Marianthi. 2017. “Addressing Women in the Greek Parliament: Institutionalized Confrontation or Sexist Aggression.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 5 (1): 30–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Joanna Everitt. 2003. “Talking Tough: Gender and Reported Speech in Campaign News Coverage.” Political Communication 201: 209–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin-Harness, Marjorie. 2006. The Hidden Life of Girls. Games of Stance, Status and Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, Ann, and Jerry L. Miller. 2005. When Stereotypes Collide: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Videostyle in Congressional Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, Ann, David M. Shafie, and Ann N. Crigler. 2003. “Is Negative Advertising Effective for Female Candidates? An Experiment in Voters’ Use of Gender Stereotypes.” Press/Politics 81: 35–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S., and Jennifer C. Lucas. 2006. “The Fairer Sex? Gender and Negative Campaigning in U.S. Elections.” American Politics Research 341: 69–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hitchon, Jacqueline C., and Chingching Chang. 1995. “Effects of Gender Schematic Processing on the Reception of Political Commercials for Men and Women Candidates.” Communication Research 221: 430–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hitchon, Jacqueline C., Chingching Chang, and Rhonda Harris. 1997. “Should Women Emote? Perceptual Bias and Opinion Change in Response to Political Ads for Candidates of Different Genders.” Political Communication 141: 49–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyde, Janet S. 2005. “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis.” American Psychologist 601: 581–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. “New Directions in the Study of Gender Similarities and Differences.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 161: 259–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Infante, Dominic A. 1987. “Aggression.” In Personality and interpersonal communication, edited by James C. McCroskey and John A. Daly, 157–192. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Infante, Dominic A., Karen C. Hartley, Matthew M. Martin, Mary Anne Higgins, Stephen D. Bruning, and Gyeongho Hur. 1992. “Initiating and Reciprocating Verbal Aggression: Effects on Credibility and Credited Valid Arguments.” Communication Studies 431: 182–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Infante, Dominic A., and Andrew S. Rancer. 1996. “Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness: A Review of Theory and Research.” In Communication Yearbook, Vol. 191, edited by D. Burleson, 319–351. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Infante, Dominic A., and Charles J. Wigley III. 1986. “Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Measure.” Communication Monographs 531: 61–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1983. “Generalizing About Messages: Suggestions for Design and Analysis of Experiments.” Human Communication Research 91: 169–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jordan-Jackson, Felicia F., Yang Lin, Andrew S. Rancer, and Dominic A. Infante. 2008. “Perceptions of Males’ and Females’ Use of Affirming and Nonaffirming Messages in an Interpersonal Dispute: You’ve Come a Long Way Baby?” Western Journal of Communication 721: 239–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” The American Political Science Review 881: 560–576. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Gerald M. Pomper. 2004. Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, and Ivy B. Rovner. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics 691: 1176–1209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Winter, and Siddharth Suri. 2012. “Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods 441: 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McElhinny, Bonnie. 1998. “‘I Don’t Smile Much Any More’: Affect, Gender and the Discourse of Pittsburgh Police Officers.” In Language and Gender: A Reader, edited by Jennifer Coates, 309–327. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCroskey, James C., and Jason J. Teven. 1999. “Goodwill: A Reexamination of the Construct and Its Measurement.” Communication Monographs 661: 90–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nau, Charlotte, and Craig O. Stewart. 2014. “Effects of Verbal Aggression and Party Identification Bias on Perceptions of Political Speakers.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 331: 526–536. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel. 2002. Persuasion: Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paxton, Pamela, Sheri Kunovich, and Melanie M. Hughes. 2007. “Gender in Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 331: 263–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seiter, John S., and Robert H. Gass. 2010. “Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts.” In Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict: New Directions in Theory and Research, edited by Theodore A. Avtgis and Andrew S. Rancer, 217–240. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, Sylvia. 2006. “Governed by Rules?: The Female Voice in Parliamentary Debates.” In Speaking Out: The Female Voice in Public Contexts, edited by Judith Baxter, 81–102. New York, NY: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talbot, Mary. 2003. “Gender Stereotypes: Reproduction and Challenge.” In The Handbook of Language and Gender, edited by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 468–486. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiner, Rachel. 2012. “Todd Akin: Claire McCaskill Was More ‘Ladylike’ in 2006.” The Washington Post, September 27. Accessed January 24, 2017. [URL]
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Sarzyńska-Wawer, Justyna & Aleksander Wawer
2025. The corpus of aggressive language in Polish parliamentary debates. Language Resources and Evaluation DOI logo
Aloia, Lindsey S. & Amanda Magusiak
2024. Political Speech: The Influence of Speaker Sex and Verbal Aggression on Message Perception. Communication Reports 37:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Knyazyan, Anna & Liza Marabyan
2023. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN VERBAL AND NONVERBAL AGGRESSION . Armenian Folia Anglistika 19:1 (27) ► pp. 057 ff. DOI logo
Richards, Adam S., Patrick Rice & Loni Covington
2022. Petty in Pink: Clothing Color Moderates Audience Perceptions of a Female Politician’s Verbal Aggression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 41:3 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Van Duyn, Emily, Cynthia Peacock & Natalie Jomini Stroud
2021. The Gender Gap in Online News Comment Sections. Social Science Computer Review 39:2 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue