Recent research published in American behavioral scientist This suggests that American voters judge the communication styles of Democrats and Republicans very unequally. The survey provides evidence that voters show varying levels of tolerance for opposing political candidates, with Donald Trump receiving far more rejection from opposing voters than Kamala Harris.
In the United States, two major political factions control the government. This environment creates a system in which people tend to strongly identify with their chosen side. In recent years, the political landscape has experienced a high degree of polarization. Polarization refers to the deep rifts in society that divide people into opposing groups that struggle to agree on basic facts and common realities.
The conflict over the results of the 2020 US presidential election has created deep divisions in American society. Partisan identity began to shape not only political opinions but also how people evaluated factual situations. A similar divide arose in the public’s perception of the events at the Capitol in 2021. These events highlight the increasing tendency of the electorate to fragment into mutually exclusive groups with very different views on social reality.
In polarized societies, individuals often experience what is called homosexuality. Homosexuality is the human tendency to seek out and associate with people who share similar beliefs and values. This desire for similarity extends to the media people consume, and algorithms on social platforms often reinforce that desire by showing users content they have already consented to. Interacting only with like-minded people often leads to emotional polarization.
Emotional polarization refers to situations in which voters not only disagree with the other side, but actually feel a deep emotional aversion to the other side. A healthy democracy relies on the idea of political tolerance. In other words, citizens accept politicians’ right to express their opinions, even if they disagree with their policies. This concept is closely tied to political correctness. Political legitimacy is the public’s belief that a political group or political leader is socially accepted and operates within normal rules.
Luc Villa-Boix, a doctoral candidate at Ramon Llull University Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations, and fellow authors designed the study to understand how U.S. voters perceive the legitimacy of the communication styles used by major candidates. They aimed to test whether people reject only their adversary’s political ideas or actively reject their adversary’s way of communicating.
“We were interested in an aspect of polarization that has received little attention: not what politicians say, but how they communicate, and whether voters accept or reject that style, regardless of ideological content,” Villa-Boik said.
“Previous research on polarization in the United States has focused on media consumption, voting behavior, and perceptions of election results,” he added. “We wanted to study whether intolerance extends to the form of political discourse itself, and whether that asymmetry can be measured systematically across electoral cycles.”
To investigate this issue, scientists partnered with the Emerson College Vote Center to survey a representative group of American adults. Data collection took place on October 13, 2024, approximately one month before the presidential election. The sample included exactly 1,000 respondents. Participants completed surveys via text message links and online panels.
The polling team weighted the responses according to their electoral importance in different regions across the country. They selected these individuals to match the general population in terms of age, gender, race, and education. This weighting ensures that the final data accurately reflects the demographic makeup of districts across the country.
In this study, participants were asked to rate the communication styles of four specific subjects. These subjects were Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Democrats, and Republicans. For each item, respondents selected from five options ranging from completely unacceptable to completely acceptable. The scientists divided these responses into three main categories for analysis.
The “rejection” category included those who found the communication unacceptable or not acceptable at all. The “acceptable” category includes those who find it acceptable or completely acceptable. Finally, the “tolerance” category combined the receptive group with the group that felt neutral or indifferent. The analysis reveals significant differences in how voters view their political parties.
“Intolerance of political communication is not symmetrical across the political spectrum,” Billa-Boik noted. “We found that Republican voters were generally more tolerant of Democratic communication styles than Democratic voters were of Republican ones. Moreover, Kamala Harris enjoyed significantly higher levels of acceptance and tolerance among both her supporters and rival voters compared to Donald Trump.”
For both Democrats and Republicans, the overall level of tolerance for their own factions was about 90%. However, the strength of this support varied. About 33 percent of Democratic voters found their party’s communications completely acceptable. Republican voters, by contrast, were more evenly divided, with many choosing a neutral response rather than outright acceptance.
Looking at specific candidates, scientists found that Kamala Harris received more support from her own base than Donald Trump. About 86% of Democratic voters accepted Harris’ communication style. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval rating among Republican voters remained at 72%.
“We were surprised by the extreme level of Democrats’ ‘total rejection’ of Donald Trump’s communication style (69%) compared to Republicans’ complete rejection of Harris’s style (41%),” Bila Boik told Cypost.
The data shows that Republican voters make little distinction between Donald Trump and the broader party. In the case of the Democratic Party, voters accepted Kamala Harris’ communication style more than the Democratic Party itself. This pattern suggests that Ms. Harris’ personal appeal outweighed her party’s institutional reputation.
“Furthermore, Ms. Harris exhibited a ‘charismatic leadership’ effect, and her personal communication style was viewed more favorably among some rival voters than the Democratic Party as an organization,” Villa-Boik said.
As with all research, there are some limitations. This study relied on a cross-sectional design, which means the researchers collected all data at a single time point. Therefore, the authors are unable to prove a causal relationship between political identity and views on communication.
“It is important to distinguish between agreeing with a message and accepting the ‘form’ or style in which the message is conveyed; our research focuses on the latter,” Villa-Boik said. “Also, this data represents a snapshot in time after a major campaign event (October 2024) and, as a cross-sectional study, cannot conclusively prove whether style causes polarization or whether pre-existing partisan identity filters style perceptions.”
The timing of the study may also be a limitation. The researchers collected their data shortly after a highly turbulent period in U.S. politics. This particular context may have amplified people’s emotional reactions to the candidates.
“People may strongly disagree with someone’s opinion and still accept that the other person has the right to defend it,” Bila-Boik explained. “Our research focuses on the second tier: not whether voters agree with the message, but whether they can tolerate the way that message is delivered.”
To address these gaps, the authors suggest that future research could track voter opinions over time. Observing how public perceptions change in response to specific campaign events will provide a deeper understanding of political tolerance.
“Our long-term goal is to use the quantitative tools developed in this study to monitor changes in political polarization across future election cycles,” Bila-Boik said. “We also plan to dig deeper into different aspects of legitimacy, pragmatic, moral, and cognitive to see which aspects of rhetorical style are most influential.”
Researchers say these evolving dynamics have real consequences for society. Functioning government relies on mutual respect and common standards.
“When even a style of communication is rejected as illegitimate, the common democratic framework begins to erode,” Villa-Boik said. “This study emphasizes that tolerance of opposing communication styles is essential for democratic stability. When voters reject the very methods of communication of their opponents as “illegal,” they erode the common political framework necessary for a healthy pluralistic society.”
The study, “Perceptions of Legitimacy and Polarization in Political Communication: Evidence from the 2024 US Election,” was authored by Luc Villa-Boix, Miguel Franco Pérez, Giorgia Miotto, and Alicia Blanco-González.
