My research draws on theories and methods from political science, communication and social psychology. My interdisciplinary approach focuses on the implications of the tone of mediated discourse, and argues that Americans’ non-political predispositions—like their tolerance for conflict or argument—interact with this tone to dictate political behavior.
Publications
Sydnor, Emily (2019). Disrespectful Democracy: The Interaction of Political Incivility and Psychological Conflict Orientation. New York: Columbia University Press.
This book complicates the relationship between incivility and political behavior by introducing a key individual predisposition—conflict orientation—into the equation. I argue that individuals experience conflict in different ways; some people enjoy arguments and are perfectly comfortable entering a shouting match in a public place while others become uncomfortable at the sight of an argument and avoid face-to-face confrontation whenever possible. Using six primary surveys and survey experiments, and supplementing with additional data, I examine the behavioral effects of the interaction between conflict orientation and incivility.
Santoro, Lauren Ratliff and Emily Sydnor (2024). “Blind Trust, Blind Skepticism: Liberals and Conservatives’ Response to Academic Research.” American Politics Research, 52(1): 52-66. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X231206136
Public perceptions of science and scientific institutions have become more negative in recent years, especially among individuals who identify as ideologically conservative in the United States. While there is much work investigating the origins and implications of this decline, we focus instead on understanding the ways in which symbols of scientific expertise, like the university, convey information in a politicized environment. Universities are seen as trusted scientific experts or biased propagandists, depending on individuals’ ideological identification. Are individuals more likely to believe research coming out of universities that they perceive to reflect their own ideological biases? This project looks at the effect of the academic source cue – the university label – on individual assessments of the research that these universities produce. Drawing on results from two survey experiments focused on climate change and racial wealth disparity research, we find that while liberals are more likely to believe research that confirms their previously held beliefs, they are also more likely to believe incongruent information when it comes from a university that they believe shares their bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, remain skeptical of academic research despite the message or its’ source. The findings point toward both “blind trust” and “blind skepticism” in academic institutions.
Pears, Emily and Emily Sydnor (2022). “COVID-19 and the Culture of American Federalism.” RSF: The Journal of the Russell Sage Foundation 8 (8): 181-220. doi: https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2022.8.8.09
COVID-19 highlighted America’s federalist structure as the dissemination of pandemic information was frequently left to states and localities. For some citizens, this was a welcome relief from national-level policymaking and political narratives, though others argued that the federal government was failing to live up to its obligations. We identify three reasons for variation in Americans’ trust in information from different levels of government: partisanship, ideology, and state identity. Using data from a representative online survey of more than one thousand people, we demonstrate that each individual characteristic shaped respondents’ trust in leaders to provide pandemic information. Partisanship and ideology played major roles in information trust at both the national and state level, but individuals’ psychological attachment to their state and to the nation also shaped their trust in the federated information environment.
Sydnor, Emily, Emily Tesmer and Breely Peterson. (2022). “Confronting Politics: The Role of Conflict Orientation in Shaping Political Debate”, Journal of Deliberative Democracy 18(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.953
Previous research (Testa et al 2014, Mutz 2015) finds that conflict orientation—individuals’ psychological predisposition towards conflict--conditions attitudes of people in the United States in the face of political disagreement. However, little research has been done into how conflict orientation influences the ways in which people engage in conversation that has the potential to become uncomfortable or contentious. While we argue that conflict orientation has a significant impact on the way college students discuss politics, results from series of interviews with undergraduate students about their thoughts and ideas regarding political incivility and campus free speech suggest that this is not the case. Instead we find that deliberation and small-group conversation can bring both the conflict-avoidant and conflict-approaching into the political conversation.
Pears, Emily and Emily Sydnor. (2022). “The Correlates and Characteristics of American State Identity” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 52(2): 173-200.
The Federalist Papers highlight the role that citizens’ state identities will play in American federalism, yet some scholars argue that contemporary Americans have shed their state attachments. Drawing on data from a nationally representative survey, we demonstrate that individuals still hold dual national and state identities, and that the likelihood that one will feel attached to their state depends on a variety of individual characteristics such as education, identification with a marginalized or minority community within the state, and one’s ideological “fit” with the partisan majority in their state, leading to significant variance from one citizen to the next. Additionally, we find that this state identity is correlated with political attitudes, particularly trust in and assessment of state elected officials. Individuals who hold stronger state identities are also more likely to trust their state government. These findings have implications for our understanding of the dynamics of federalism in modern U.S. politics.
Sydnor, Emily. (2021). “Look for the Motives Behind (Un)civil Speech” in Fixing American Politics: Civic Priorities for the Media Age, Roderick P. Hart, ed. New York: Routledge.
Pundits, politicians and most Americans are quick to describe incivility as a problem. But it is not the mere presence of incivility that is troubling but how people deploy it to achieve their political goals. After all, while intemperate rhetoric can be used to harass people, it can also be used to call attention to great injustices. In an attempt to reckon with these two faces of incivility, this chapter makes three suggestions: (1) we must reflect more deeply about the strategic use of incivility; (2) we must engage disagreement head-on even when it is uncomfortable to do so; and (3) we must be thoughtful about how we disagree with others, especially those who do not share our worldview. Yes, incivility can be problematic, but it can also be a sign that change is needed, a sign we dare not overlook.
Sydnor, Emily, Margaret Commins and Veronica Reyna. (2021) “Empowering and Engaging Students through Civically-Engaged Research” PS: Political Science & Politics, First View.
This article, which is part of a larger PS Symposium on Civically-Engaged Research in political science, offers arguments for the integration of civically-engaged into the classroom. Drawing on the authors’ experiences implementing CER projects with their own students, we offer specific recommendations and guidelines for those who are interested in implementing similar projects.
Flores, Madison, Megan Nair, Meredith Rasmussen and Emily Sydnor. (2021) “Civility through Comparative Lens: Challenges and Achievements” in Crossing Boundaries: Political Incivility in the Parliamentary, Electoral and Media Arena. Annemarie Walter, ed. New York: Routledge.
This chapter argues for the importance of studying civility in comparative perspective and highlights the ways in which “what counts” as civil or uncivil varies across countries and contexts. It also emphasizes the need to scholars to recognize that civility is not always normatively good, but can be used by anti-democratic forces to restrict speech, and that incivility can be used to further democratic aims.
Sydnor, Emily (2021). “With Laughter and a Little Follow-Through: Moving from Hobbyist to Activist” Journal of Politics.
This review article discusses the points of synthesis between Eitan Hersh’s Politics is for Power, Dannagal Goldthwaite Young’s Irony and Outrage and Making Young Voters by John B. Holbein and D. Sunshine Hillygus.
Sydnor, Emily (2020). “Watching the ‘Partisan Circus:’ Civility in the Texas Senatorial Debates.” in Civility and the 2018 U.S. Senate Debates, Robert G. Boatright, ed. Tucson, AZ: National Institute for Civil Discourse.
This chapter in a report by the National Institute for Civil Discourse analyzes the civility and incivility of the debates between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke during the 2018 Texas Senate race.
Sydnor, Emily (2019). “Signaling Incivility: The Role of Speaker, Substance, and Tone” in A Crisis of Civility? Contemporary Research on Civility, Incivility and Political Discourse. Robert G. Boatright, Timothy J. Shaffer, Sarah Sobieraj, and Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, eds. New York: Routledge.
Is it possible that incivility is a good thing? This chapter uses two survey experiment to untangle three important components of political communication—speaker, substance and tone—to more clearly understand what drives perceptions of incivility and the effects of incivility on political behavior.
Sydnor, Emily (2018). "Platforms for Incivility: Examining Perceptions Across Media" Political Communication.
Reprinted as: Sydnor, Emily (2019). “Platforms for Incivility: Examining Perceptions Across Media” in Studying Politics Across Media, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga, eds. New York: Routledge.
Using two survey experiments, I demonstrate that individuals' perceptions of incivility are shaped by the mix of attributes present across different media platforms. Generally, audio and video increase awareness of incivility cues as well as participants' evaluations of negative, emotional and entertaining tone. The social media platform Twitter is particularly entertaining in comparison to the other platforms studied.
Sydnor, Emily and Nicole Pankiewicz. (2017). “Assessing Undergraduate Learning in Political Science: Development and Implementation of the PACKS Survey” PS: Political Science & Politics. (gated)
We describe the creation and implementation of a new online assessment program ("PACKS") for the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of online assessments and ways that our approach can be implemented by other universities. Specifically, we recommend using a strong incentive to ensure full participation, such as an advising hold that prevents students from registering until they complete the assessment.
Sydnor, Emily and Danielle Psimas (2017). “Easing Political Digestion: The Effects of News Curation on Citizens Behavior” Journal of Information Technology and Politics. (gated)
The contemporary media environment is rife with choices, especially format and delivery system. We focus on “curated news:” a collection of links delivered to one’s inbox, phone, or RSS feed. These digests vary in the extent to which they contextualize the information they present. Some offer headlines with links to the full article, while others summarize and interpret the story for the reader. Using a survey experiment, we vary the amount of contextualization present in a set of curated links to test the effects of curation on citizens’ recall of information, their interest in politics, and their search for information.
Working Papers
Papers are available upon request.
“Effects of Protest Coverage on American Attitudes” (with Adelaide Armen, Andrew Parker, and Abigail Skelton)
“That’s the sound of the (civility) police: How Civility Serves as a Political Strategy” (with Samuel Gubitz)
“Stressing Incivility: Physiological Arousal and Incivility” (with Emily Tesmer and Erin Crockett)
Dissertation
Winner, APSA Political Communication section Best Dissertation Award, 2016