Political frustration and skepticism are on the rise in the United States and several other democracies globally, and a recent study from the University of Michigan reveals a connection to political attacks on social media.
While Americans turn to social media for political information, a significant portion of the content they encounter in their feeds is aggressive, disrespectful, and accusatory. The researchers delved into whether exposure to these political attacks on social media is linked to increased political cynicism. Additionally, they explored the role of emotions like anger and anxiety in this process.
Political attacks
The findings indicate that individuals exposed to more political attacks on social media tend to be more politically cynical. Furthermore, the perceived exposure to these attacks is correlated with heightened anger about the state of the U.S., which, in turn, contributes to higher levels of political cynicism.
“It’s important to understand how feelings of cynicism emerge because we’re seeing many democratic governments facing crises of legitimacy,” the researchers explain. “Our findings provide some of the first evidence of how exposure to political attacks on social media might relate to political cynicism in the context of a U.S. presidential election.”
The researchers define political cynicism as an attitude deeply rooted in distrust of the motivations of political actors. It extends beyond healthy skepticism, encompassing a broad rejection of individuals and processes within democracy. Political cynicism is characterized by an underlying belief that politicians are driven by corrupt, self-serving personal interests rather than a commitment to serving the public good.
Growing cynicism
“Cynicism can be a rational response to actual corruption and breaches of trust by those in power,” they explain. “But it is a matter of concern among scholars of democracy because of its potential to delegitimize democratic processes, reinforce negative attitudes, distort people’s interpretations of political information, and cause some citizens to withdraw from politics.”
Surveys from the Pew Research Center reveal that public confidence in the government in the United States has plummeted to its lowest levels in decades. Widespread perceptions that government actions are guided by self-interest and corruption have fueled cynicism across the political spectrum. The University of Michigan (U-M) conducted a study to explore whether this surge in cynicism is connected to the use of political social media.
Political content on social media often tends to be toxic, and as we approach the presidential election, an increase in online political hostility is expected during the summer and fall. Past research indicates that political attacks conveyed by independent entities, rather than candidates, can significantly shape political beliefs. Social media algorithms tend to reward and amplify these attacks because they generate engagement. Studies suggest that this amplification makes outrage more powerful and visible, distorting users’ perceptions of public opinion.
Unreliable sources
“If your main source of news is social media, you are more likely to perceive politics as hostile and angry,” the authors continue. “And beyond the feelings that political attacks provoke, it matters how people perceive and read the temperature of ‘public emotions’ because this can impact assessments about the country’s well-being and its ability to solve problems and accomplish goals.”
The study’s panel survey focused on participants’ social media usage, specifically whether they encountered political attacks against Trump and Republicans or against Biden and Democrats on social media. The survey also included questions to gauge political cynicism and inquired about participants’ sentiments regarding the state of the U.S.
Over the past decade, public anger in American politics has intensified, and recent data indicates a rising trend among American voters, particularly leading up to the first presidential election since the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
In 2019, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that nearly 7 in 10 Americans expressed anger towards the political establishment. A 2023 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute indicated that about a quarter of Americans believe that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country,” a notable increase from 15% in 2021.
Negative emotions
The study also highlighted anxiety as another negative emotion tied to uncertainty, risk aversion, and threats, particularly when they are vague, unknown, or perceived to be beyond an individual’s control. The researchers noted that political fearmongering and toxicity on social media can amplify anxiety during a presidential election by creating uncertainty about political outcomes and fostering a general sense of political hostility that feels beyond individual control.
“Negative emotions are not necessarily bad for democracy,” the researchers explain. “Emotions like anxiety and anger can drive people to the polls, motivate advocacy, and get people to seek and think more deeply about political information. But relentless negativity about the state of a country ‘under threat’ can also make people frustrated, disgruntled and disengaged. Anger can affect our ability to see things as they are and make measured decisions that are important in a democracy.”
The study uncovered evidence indicating that exposure to political attacks on social media plays a role in fostering anxiety, anger, and political cynicism. However, among these emotions, anger emerged as the primary factor linked to political cynicism.
“As more people turn to social media for news and information, it’s likely that they’ll be more repeatedly exposed to political attacks, which may further promote political cynicism,” the authors conclude. “This is concerning because cynicism can make it harder for people to make sense of political information. It can lead people down a road of apathy and disengagement or toward fringe parties and antidemocratic forms of participation.”
