Contingent condition: counter-attitudinal communication
As we discussed before, detrimental effects of uncivil attack can be moderated by the target of attacking message. In this sense, message congruence might be an important contingent factor for determining characteristics and level of incivility effects. That is, message dissonance from one’s own position may moderate effects of incivility on receivers’ negative reactions. In fact, prior research shows that exposure to dissonant views may produce detrimental effects on citizens’ socio-relational attitudes. For example, research on resistance to persuasion shows that people tend to regard counter-attitudinal information as a threat to their personal identity, and thus, tend to show negative reactions to the information, especially when they have strong commitment on their attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Research on thought-induced polarization also shows that merely thinking about an attitude causes that attitude to polarize or become more extreme (see Tesser, 1978; Tesser, Martin, & Mendolia, 1995). These studies suggest that exposure to conflicting views may produce negative attitudes toward those who have conflicting views and intolerance toward the oppositional views because counter attitudinal communication may enhance feeling of threat and induce more extreme attitudes.
Given that source incredibility and low message quality generally decrease message persuasion (see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and that uncivil expression tend to increase source incredibility and negative evaluations of message (Ng & Detenber, 2005), uncivil attacking in counter-attitudinal messages might be a optimal setting producing resistance to persuasion including negative reactions to persuasive communication. In fact, some studies on campaign ads show that negative campaign advertising may also produce unintended effects, such as backlash against its sponsoring candidate. Garramone (1984) dubbed this unintended effect “boomerang effect.” According to him, “negative political advertising may achieve its intended effects, but it may also produce boomerang effects. A strong attack on a candidate, if perceived by the audience as untruthful, undocumented, or in any way unjustified, may create more negative feelings toward the sponsor, rather than the target (p. 251).”