Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has intensified public discourse surrounding the war’s causes, consequences, and the global response. Foreign policy experts advocating for Ukraine frequently contribute to these discussions, using platforms like social media to mobilize international support. However, the use of emotional and uncivil language by experts in public statements raises questions about its effects on their credibility, message reception, and the persuasiveness of their appeals. This study examines how such language influences public perceptions of experts, evaluations of their messages, and support for Ukraine, particularly within the U.S., a key ally in the conflict.
Drawing on Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT), we hypothesize that uncivil language reduces experts’ perceived credibility, while emotional language has more nuanced effects. Specifically, we test the impacts of language on three dimensions: expert credibility and competence, audience engagement and message accuracy, and the persuasive power of expert appeals. Using a survey experiment with 1,000 U.S. adults, participants were exposed to expert statements employing neutral, emotional, or uncivil language, or to a control text unrelated to the war. Outcomes were measured via perceptions of expertise, engagement intentions, message accuracy, and support for Ukraine.
Findings reveal that uncivil language significantly undermines perceptions of experts’ credibility, trustworthiness, and objectivity. Emotional language, by contrast, slightly enhances perceptions of experts’ knowledge and intelligence but does not alter perceived accuracy, which is highest for neutral statements. Emotional language also boosts audience intentions to share content, whereas uncivil language diminishes it. Regarding persuasiveness, both emotional and neutral tones increase agreement with expert messages, but none of the language treatments influenced participants’ support for Ukraine, possibly due to entrenched opinions formed earlier in the conflict.
These effects were largely consistent across political and ideological demographics, suggesting the broad applicability of findings. The study underscores the potential benefits of emotional language in engaging audiences and the risks of uncivil communication in eroding trust. Future research should investigate the impacts of repeated exposure to such language and its relevance across different conflict and policy contexts.