Article content continued

Uncivil attacks in politics seem to create a kind of mutually assured destruction, where people are likely to think slightly less of the target, but even worse of the person making the attack.

Trudeau or Scheer would be making a risky cost-benefit analysis if they rip into 'Sleepy Andrew' or 'Little Justin' at the leaders' debate

Frimer references studies that found people tend to judge each other on the “big two” aspects of personality, which are warmth and dominance. A friendly, civil demeanour tends to inspire warmth, while competence and agency can inspire dominance. When an uncivil attack is launched, it creates a conflict: it could potentially give the impression of dominance, but also makes the person come across as cold.

“A critical finding from Big Two studies is that warmth is the primary, and dominance the secondary dimension of social judgment,” writes Frimer. “If social approval is the goal, it is better to be seen as warm than it is to be seen as dominant.”

It could be that Trump gained other benefits from uncivil behaviour. When he faced off in the Republican primary race against a crop of conventional politicians, his off-kilter style and personal insults about his rivals may have knocked them off their game.

Anyone on the receiving end, or even witnessing, an uncivil attack experiences a negative reaction that causes them to perform poorly on unrelated tasks. “Even the performance of medical teams appears to suffer from being the target of incivility from patients or other doctors,” the paper argues.

It’s also possible that Trump’s attacks hurt him in the short term, but also contributed to the winning idea that he was a candidate outside the establishment and not a normal politician.