The Role of Communication Style in Argument Quality Rating Across Political Lines

Abstract

Climate change is a topic of political divide, especially in online environments. This study investigates the impact of need-satisfying versus need-frustrating communication styles on perceived argument quality and the moderating effect of assumed difference in party affiliation. In a between-subjects experiment (N = 51), participants identified as climate change skeptics or believers engaged in a chat conversation with a chatbot representing opposing views to their own. Each participant was randomly assigned to interact with a chatbot employing a need-satisfying, need-frustrating, or neutral communication style. Post-conversation, participants completed questionnaires assessing demographics, assumed party affiliation of the conversation partner, and the perceived quality of the conversation partner’s arguments. The manipulation of communication style was successful, χ²(2, 51) = 8.854, p = .012. Significant main effects were found for both communication style (χ²(2) = 6.66, p = .036) and perceived party affiliation difference (χ²(1) = 5.25, p = .022) on perceived argument quality; however, no interaction effect was observed (p = .149). Specifically, a more need-satisfying and neutral communication style led to higher ratings of conversation partner’s arguments than a needfrustrating communication style. Similarly, assuming the conversation partner was of the same party affiliation was correlated with higher argument quality ratings than assuming a party affiliation difference. These findings suggest that while communication style and assumed party affiliation difference independently influence perceived argument quality, they do not affect each other. These findings can inform the development of interventions aimed at enhancing civic engagement in climate change discourse by controlling communication tone and inter-party discussions.