Incivility, over-simplification, lying, and inaccessible language: there is widespread concern about the way politicians communicate. The underlying reasoning is that when politicians are dishonest, over-simplify matters, or insult each other, they violate widely shared communicative norms (Mutz, 2015). However, the widespread support for such norms among citizens is generally presupposed and we know surprisingly little about the norms individuals actually hold towards politicians' communication. Yet, a better understanding of the level and the variation in normative expectations towards politicians’ communication will allow us to better understand how individuals react to such communication.
We use novel Belgian survey data (2021, N=2030) to investigate differences in respect-based norms for mediated elite communication and their violations (e.g., incivility, over-simplification, dishonesty). Results reveal there is substantial variation in support for respect-based norms across the population, with notable differences based on socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education) and political attitudes (cynicism, populist, polarized attitudes). Moreover, we examine how individual levels of norm-support and perceived exposure to norm-violations relate to political tune-out (media avoidance and discussing politics) and legitimacy perceptions (political trust and candidate evaluations). While most people perceive that politicians do not play by the rules, not everyone adheres to these rules to the same extent and, as a result, not everyone reacts as strongly to rule-breaking.
