JXP 1321 S23

Please do not remove this page
Male or Female, Aggressive or Polite? An

Examination on the Impact of Debates on
Perceptions and Attitudes of the Audience
Petit, John
https://scholarship.miami.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Male-or-Female-Aggressive-or-Polite/991031824790902976/filesAndLinks?index=0
Petit, J. (2023). Male or Female, Aggressive or Polite? An Examination on the Impact of Debates on
Perceptions and Attitudes of the Audience [University of Miami].
https://scholarship.miami.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Male-or-Female-Aggressive-or-Polite/99103182
4790902976
Open
Downloaded On 2024/05/03 23:24:25 -0400
Please do not remove this page

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
MALE OR FEMALE, AGGRESSIVE OR POLITE? AN EXAMINATION ON THE

IMPACT OF DEBATES ON PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF THE
AUDIENCE
By
John Petit
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty

of the University of Miami
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Coral Gables, Florida
August 2023
©2023
John Petit
All Rights Reserved
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
MALE OR FEMALE, AGGRESSIVE OR POLITE? AN EXAMINATION ON THE

IMPACT OF DEBATES ON PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF THE
AUDIENCE
John Petit
Approved:
________________ _________________
Nicholas Carcioppolo, Ph.D. Alyse Lancaster, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Communication Associate Professor of
Communication
________________ _________________
Michael Beatty, Ph.D. Patriia S. Abril, J.D.
Professor of Communication Interim Dean of the Graduate
School
______________
Sam Terilli, J.D.
Professor of Journalism
PETIT, JOHN (Ph.D.,Communication)
Male or Female, Aggressive or Polite? An Examination (August 2023)

on the Impact of Debates on Perceptions and Attitudes
of the Audience.
Abstract of a dissertation at the University of Miami.
Dissertation supervised by Professor Nicholas Carcioppolo.

No. of pages in text. (99)
Given the exponential increase in exposure to online debates, a series of
experimental investigations were conducted to examine the impact of gender of
debaters and tone of debate on audiences’ attitudes and evaluation processes. The
theoretical frameworks of gender role theory and politeness theory were used to guide
the propositions and hypotheses. Findings suggest that audience members generally
prefer polite debate communication over aggressive debate communication. More
specifically, results indicate that audience members who were exposed to polite female
and polite male debaters reported more positive attitudes toward the debaters than
audience members who were exposed to aggressive female and aggressive male
debaters. No interaction effects were found between gender of debaters and tone of
debate on audiences’ perceptions on the winner of the debate. Theoretical and practical
implications are discussed at the end.

TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vi
Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Study Background............................................................................................ 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 3
Research Contribution ..................................................................................... 4
2 REVIEW AND RELATED LITERATURE ................................................. 6

The Evolution of Debates, Online Debates, and User Participation ................ 6
Political and Socio-Cultural Debates on the Internet ....................................... 10
Debate Characteristics ..................................................................................... 13
Gender of Debaters………………………………………………….. 13
Tone of Debate ..................................................................................... 17
3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 21

Gender Role Theory ......................................................................................... 21
Mediators ......................................................................................................... 24
4 STUDY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 27

Study 1 ............................................................................................................. 27
Study 2 ............................................................................................................. 29
Study 3 ............................................................................................................. 37
5 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES/METHOD ....................................................... 41

Pre-Test ............................................................................................................ 41
Study 1 ............................................................................................................. 43
Descriptive Sample Analysis…………………………….………….. 43
Study Design/Procedure....................................................................... 43
Measurements ……………………………………………………….. 44
Result. .................................................................................................. 45
Study 2 ............................................................................................................. 46
Measurements ……………………………………………………….. 48
Result. .................................................................................................. 48
Study 3 ............................................................................................................. 52
Measurements ……………………………………………………….. 53
Result. .................................................................................................. 53
iii
6 GENERAL DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 56
REFERENCES …………… ....................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX I – DEBATE SCRIPT …………… ........................................................ 77
APPENDIX II - QUESTIONNAIRE ……………...................................................... 81
FIGURES …………… ................................................................................................ 86
TABLES …………… ................................................................................................. 92
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Online viewers’ perception based on Gender Role Congruity …………… 86
Figure 2. Conceptual model for H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d …………… ..................... 87
Figure 3. Conceptual model for hypothesis H3a, H3b, and H3c …………… ............ 88
Figure 4. Overall model framework ……………........................................................ 89
Figure 5. Model results (Study 2)…………… ............................................................ 90
Figure 6. Model results (Study 3)…………… ............................................................ 91
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mediators as outcome variable (Study 2) …………… ................................. 92
Table 2. Dependent variable as outcome variable (Study 2)…………… ................... 94
Table 3. Direct effects (Study 2) …………… ............................................................. 95
Table 4. Mediators as outcome variable (Study 3) …………… ................................. 96
Table 5. Dependent variable as outcome variable (Study 3)…………… ................... 98
Table 6: Direct and indirect effects (Study 3) …………… ........................................ 99
vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Study Background
Consider the following scenario. James has recently finished his work
assignments for the day and decides to browse the Internet to watch some online
videos about topics that he finds interesting. While scrolling through the YouTube
recommendations section he stumbles upon an abundance of videos that suggest
debating scenarios between two or multiple protagonists. One video might be titled:
“Climate change deniers debate scientists”. The next video title might read: “Pro-
abortion activists conversate with anti-abortion proponents” Another title might
suggest: “Pro-vaccine activist battles with anti-vaccine activist”. While these
examples are hypothetical in nature, online users are likely to be exposed to online
debates with a wide array of topics ranging from trivial, to entertaining, to even
controversial.
Public interest in debates has increased quantifiably over the last years. As
several metrics have shown, many individuals have turned to online platforms for
watching videos, including debates. Both debates between presidential candidates
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016, and Joe Biden and Donald Trump in
2020, have drawn increasingly larger audiences. In 2016, the first televised debate
between Clinton and Trump drew a record audience of 84 million viewers, and
averaged approximately 74 million viewers across all three debates (Nielsen, 2016).
In 2020, the two main televised debates between Trump and Biden still averaged 68
million viewers (Nielsen, 2020). In addition, the emergence of the Coronavirus
pandemic significantly affected online users’ engagement and consumption behavior,
accelerating the transition from watching relevant, engaging, and interesting content
1
2
through the classic television medium to viewing content through the online medium
(i.e., Braun, 2015; Garcia-Perdomo, 2021).
This rapid transition in media consumption behavior further extends to the
realm of important social conversations, discussions, and debates. Online dialogue,
conversations and debates have seen a rapid improvement of production quality over
the last years and subsequently drawn an increasingly larger audience in the process
(see Peer & Ksiazek, 2011). Given the demonstrable interest of individuals in
listening to and/or watching debates, the topic of debate itself and how the audience
perceives, evaluates, and engages with debates highlights the need to further conduct
an empirical and scholarly investigation on relevant aspects within the framework of
debates.
The current online and digital landscape has evolved into an indispensable
environment in which individuals seek information and entertainment, engage in
conversations, and establish a sense of community. However, it should be noted that
audience members do not necessarily limit their watching and/or listening to debates
to the internet. Even in our progressively digitalized society, debates still occur in
“purely” face-to-face situations in which the audience receives the conversation
directly without having information relayed to them through the online medium. As
such, this study aims to empirically examine the complex and dynamic interaction
between debates and the viewing audience. Specifically, this research project
addresses how certain constructs or variables within a debate such as gender and the
tone in which arguments are presented affect audience members’ attitudes, opinions,
and evaluation processes on who is perceived as the winner of the debate.
Furthermore, this empirical investigation aims to provide both practical and

3
theoretical propositions that highlight the mechanisms with which audience members
evaluate conversations within a debate.
Problem Statement
Debates and their impact on the general audience have been widely examined
in the fields of persuasion and rhetoric (see Garcia-Mila, Gilabert, Reduran, & Felton,
2013; Jorgensen, Kock, & Rorbech, 1998; Partington & Taylor, 2017), however, less
is known on the effect of the combination of debaters’ gender and debate tone on
viewers’ perceptions, evaluations, and attitudes. Recent studies suggest, for instance,
that online debates might improve critical thinking skills (Niah, 2021) and raise
awareness of critically important issues (Lokot, 2018). While other findings maintain
that online debates foster toxicity and anger (Cinelli et al., 2021), misinformation
(Metzger et al., 2021), and cynicism/distrust (Markov & Min, 2021) among online
users.
The main point of emphasis of this empirical investigation focuses on relevant
characteristics within the content of a debate that might impact viewers’ evaluation
and attitudinal formation processes on both the topic of a debate/conversation and the
debaters themselves. In particular, the gender and tone in which arguments are
presented have been shown to be important indicators in regard to assessing debate
watchers’ evaluation processes (i.e., Burgoon, Dillard, and Doran, 1983; König &
Jucks, 2019). However, no research has specifically examined how audiences are
affected by (1) different gender combinations within a debate and (2) the tone in
which the arguments within a debate are delivered. In reference to the interaction of
gender and the online environment, previous research has demonstrated that gender
differences can significantly impact behavioral outcomes in online shopping (i.e.,
Sebastianelli, Tamimi, & Rajan, 2008; Ulbrich, Christensen, & Stankus, 2011), online
4
gaming (i.e., Shaw, 2015; Williams, Consalvo, Caplan, & Yee, 2009), and online
teaching (i.e., Pollock, Hamann, & Wilson, 2005). This study aims to widen the
scholarly understanding of gender and argument delivery dynamics in debate spaces
and improve both the practical and theoretical knowledge on how viewers react to
different genders in debates and how it subsequently impacts their evaluation and
attitudes on the debate (and the debaters themselves).
Research Contribution
This research aims to empirically investigate the complex structure of (online)
debates and how specific elements such as gender of the debaters and tone of
argument delivery impact online viewers’ cognitive evaluation processes. Social role
theory (see Eagly, Wood, & Diekmann, 2000; Eagly & Wood, 2011) is employed as
the main theoretical framework to address the interaction of debaters’ gender and tone
of argument delivery on online viewers’ attitudes and evaluation processes (i.e.,
including audiences’ perceptions on who they perceived to be the winner of the
debate). Within this theoretical framework, the authors will examine how pre-existing
gender norms/stereotypes impact viewers evaluations of attributes such as perceived
competence and authority, and how conformity or disconformity with existing gender
stereotypes impact their assessment on their attitudes toward the debate, the debaters,
and evaluations on who won the debate. Within this theoretical framework of social
role theory, the authors aim to address important questions, such as how relevant is
perceived gender role congruity in the context of debates? And how much do different
gender debate configurations (i.e., female v male debate; male vs male debater; male
vs male debater), as well as the tone in which the debate protagonists present their
arguments, impact attitudes and evaluations of debate watchers?

5
The authors will conduct three experimental studies to address the previously
mentioned elements of debates and their subsequent impact on viewers’ attitudes and
perceptions toward the debaters, as well as evaluations such as the perceived winner
of the debate. In the first study, participants will be asked to read the debate script
between two speakers/protagonists who present their arguments either in a polite or
an aggressive manner. This experimental scenario will function as the baseline
experiment to demonstrate how the debate audience reacts to the arguments in a
vacuum (i.e., participants will not be able to see or hear the debate protagonists;
instead, they will only be exposed to written aggressive or polite debate conversation)
In the second and third studies, the authors will add the gender of the debaters
as an additional variable of interest. Specifically, in the second study, participants will
be exposed to two same-sex or different-sex debate pairs who debate each other in
either an aggressive or polite tone. In the third study, participants will be exposed to
same-sex or different-sex debate pairs where one debater presents the arguments in a
polite tone and the other debater responds in an aggressive tone.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The evolution of debates, online debates, and user participation
The focus of this dissertation study resides in understanding the phenomenon
of (video) debates and how specific elements within this construct such as gender of
the debaters and tone of the argument delivery affect online viewers’ attitudes and
evaluations toward the debaters, as well as their impressions of the winner of the
debate. Before addressing these essential questions, it is worth examining the context
and social circumstances in which (online) debates occur.
The topic of debates has been a subject of contemporary and academic
literature since the age of Socrates, a philosopher of the ancient Greek empire.
Socrates highlighted the importance of engaging in dialogue and conversation, which
was later coined as the term “Socratic method” (Nelson, 1980). The Socratic method
is widely considered to be the original form of debating. Around circa 469 BC-399
BC, Socrates would often approach common people on the streets of Greece and
engage them in philosophic conversations with the intent to have them question their
own principles and moral standards (Delic & Becirovic, 2016; Seeskin, 1987). Lam
recapitulated the four main pillars of the Socratic method: “eliciting relevant
preconceptions, clarifying preconceptions, testing one’s own hypotheses or
encountered propositions, and deciding whether to accept the hypotheses or
propositions.” (p. 2). More recent academic research has substantiated the notion that
debates constitute an essential part of any functional society and democratic system
(Barr, 1991), and can significantly impact viewers’ opinions and attitudes on the topic
of the debate (see Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000; Lanoue & Schroff,
1989).
6
7
The rise of online video platforms such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Instagram
have presented new and improved ways for individuals to interact with digital
technologies, as well as engaging in participatory activities such as commenting,
liking, and sharing (e.g., van Zoonen, Vis, & Mihelj, 2010; Nicholson & Leask,
2012). Previous research suggests that the digitalization process and the online debate
culture differ from its face-to-face counterpart to the extent that online debates can be
held synchronously and asynchronously, filter out more social cues, and tend to be
more interactive in nature (e.g., Albrecht, 2006; Tikves et al., 2012). The relative
accessibility of the Internet provides online users more ease and freedom to
participate in discussions, hence facilitating both information acquisition and
distribution (Van Dijk, 2012). Online discussions have also been shown to positively
impact students’ learning, resulting in improved critical thinking, knowledge
construction, and learning autonomy (Lim & Chai, 2004; Marra, Moore, & Klimczak,
2004). Baek, Wojcieszak, and Carpini (2012) examined the motivation, processes,
and effects of deliberation both from an online and offline perspective. The results
indicated that, when compared to face-to-face settings, online deliberation was found
to invoke more negative emotions and result in less consensus and political action.
Given the increasing prevalence and popularity of these technological
platforms, communication research has devoted more efforts to examining and
understanding how online users are impacted by online debates, how they shape their
cognitive evaluation processes, and how they affect society at large. Early
communication and sociology research applauded the beneficial aspects and
revolutionary potential of the online communication space (i.e., Blumler & Gurevitch,
2001; Dahlgren, 2005), stating that the Internet harbored the potential to create a
positive environment in which online users can discuss their opinions with less
8
outside constraints, engage in productive public deliberation (Witschge, 2004), and
create more meaningful discussions through rational discourse (Papacharissi, 2004).
Shirky (2011) further highlighted the importance of the Internet as a democratic
channel through which “the networked population is gaining greater access to
information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability
to undertake collective action” (p. 29).
Recent research has adopted a more critical approach towards the role and
impact of the Internet on individuals’ attitudes and debating behavior emphasizing the
negative consequences of online debates, such as the emergence of opinion/group
polarization (Lin & Tian, 2019; Iandoli, Primario, & Zollo, 2021), uncivil discussions
(Lin & Tian, 2019), and misinformation (Caldarelli et al., 2021; Treen et al., 2020). In
a more detailed analysis, Nicholson and Leask examined the structure and impact of
online debates on the concrete topic of measles mumps-rubella (MMR) immunization.
They found that the discussion in associated online forums dominantly mirrored
anecdotal evidence and lay jargon rather than scientific expertise. Hwang, Kim, and
Huh (2014) extended the scholarly investigation into the negative effects of online
debates and online discussion on users’ attitudes and opinion evaluations. The
experimental study revealed that online users who were exposed to negative and
uncivil online debates reported an increase of perceived polarization of the public and
a decrease in their expectations about the quality of public deliberation. In another
recent study, Rains, Kenski, Coe, and Harwood (2017) analyzed politically themed
debates in an online newspaper discussion forum and found that political identities
and intergroup commonalities were significant predictors of online incivility. From a
similar perspective, Hampton, Shin, and Lu (2017) explored the relationship between
social media usage and the expression of political opinions online. One of their main
9
findings indicated that use of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter
negatively impact online deliberation and perceived opinion agreement amongst
online users.
Another lineage of research has approached the role of the Internet from a
more nuanced and less binary perspective, asserting that online communication and
online debating can occur both under advantageous and disadvantageous
circumstances. Esau, Fries, and Eilders (2017) conducted an empirical review of
online deliberation on different news platforms. The authors concluded that online
deliberation and discussion quality varied significantly between different types of
news platforms (i.e., news forum, news websites, and Facebook news pages).
Specifically, the results of the study showed that debates on news forums were mostly
rational and respectful in nature, while discussions on Facebook news pages
demonstrated the least amount of deliberative quality. The authors further explicated
that design features, moderation practices, well-defined topics, and availability of
information significantly affect the overall deliberative quality of user comments.
Similarly, Wojcieszak and Mutz (2009) examined the communication behavior of
over 1,000 users who engaged in online debate chat rooms and message boards. In the
conclusion of the study, the authors explained that disagreement could both be
reduced or accelerated depending on the social context of the online environment, the
availability of political content, and the presence/absence of anonymity. Wright and
Street (2007) extended this line of reasoning and conducted an empirical investigation
of European Union and UK discussion forums. The authors found that the degree
and/or civility of online deliberation is often dependent on the design and choices
within online forums rather than a pre-determined outcome of technology. The results
of this study further demonstrate that well-reasoned moderation practices and

10
effective forum policies can significantly improve the quality and utility of
asynchronous online conversations and deliberation.
In sum, current communication literature has engaged extensively with the
political, social, and practical determinants of debating behavior. The accumulated
findings indicate that the debate communication space offers positive elements to the
nature of online debates such as easy accessibility, presence of like-minded
individuals, and the affordance of different modes or types of communication.
Political and socio-cultural debates on the Internet
Before directing attention to the unique aspect of video debates, it is worth
examining the topical landscape of the debate and communication space. Recent
communication research suggests that politics is one of the most common topics of
discussion in debates amongst online users. The interest in the connection between
social media and politics can be traced back to the beginning of the millennium,
particularly to 2008 when Barrack Obama commanded a significant amount of
attention on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (see Gainous &
Wagner, 2013). This development has led the public to increasingly articulate their
political attitudes and opinions on social media. Existing literature shows that online
users tend to be most active and vocal on social media platforms when discussing
political election cycles (i.e., Bentivegna & Marchetti, 2015; Trilling, 2015), new
laws/regulations (i.e., Benkler et al., 2015; Detenber et al., 2014; Sweeting et al.,
2017), and political scandals (i.e., Erzikova & Simpson, 2018; Vonnahme, 2014;
Wahl-Jorgensen, Bennett, & Taylor, 2017). Specifically, it has been shown that social
media attributes significantly differ from traditional media outlets, such that social
media has “the ability to facilitate personal influence through the sharing,
endorsement, and discussion of content” (Anspach, 2017).

11
Loader, Vromen, and Xenos (2015) conducted a qualitative research study on
the political mobilization activity of undergraduate students across multiple university
campuses and concluded that social media platforms play an essential role in the
“messaging, discussion, disruption, and the presentation of the political self” (p. 837).
In a similar vein, Ruiz et al. (2011) conducted a content analysis of more than 15,000
online comments from five major national newspapers including The Guardian
(United Kingdom), Le Monde (France), The New York Times (United States), El País
(Spain), and La Republica (Italy). Their analysis revealed that audience participation
regarding discussions about political topics differed mainly based on the cultural
context. As such, commenting behavior in online newspapers that are consistent with
the Liberal media model (i.e., New York Times; Guardian) demonstrated greater
amounts of argumentation and more diversity of ideas than commenting behavior the
other three newspapers. Consequentially, political discussions that took place in the
polarized pluralist media model (ie., El País, Le Monde, La Republica) were found to
be less respectful and more homogenous in nature. Through employing a mixture of
experimental and survey research designs, Bode (2016) investigated the role of social
media as a source of political information. The results of the study indicate that social
media functions as an important catalyst through which online users can form
opinions, adjust political attitudes, and motivate political behavior. The results further
demonstrate that, when compared to non-political information, political information
significantly increases online users´ passive learning capabilities.
It is interesting to note that the increase in political engagement on the Internet
does not necessarily lead to positive effects regarding individuals´ attitudes toward
political topics and to society as a whole. Rather, Fuchs (2017) argues that online
engagement with political topics only reinforces existing attitudes and politically
12
elitist behaviors, which leads many individuals to be excluded from participating in
productive political discussions online. On the other hand, Graham and Wright (2014)
conducted an empirical content analysis of over 2,000 “super-posters” (i.e., a
dominant minority of online users who contribute to most of the discussions) and over
25 million messages. The results were antithetical to the previous observation and
showed that super-posters did not attack other users for their expressed point of view
and did not attempt to block other users from posting comments to an existing
discussion.
Recent research in the scholarly fields of communication and journalism has
substantiated the notion that entertainment news dominate the topical landscape on
online and social media platforms (i.e., Haim, Graefe, & Brosius, 2018; Harcup &
O’Neill, 2017; Kilgo, Harlow, Garcia-Perdomo, & Salaverria, 2018). Previous
research has also indicated that consumption of online entertainment news differs
when comparing various media platforms. As such, Santana and Dozier (2019)
conducted a content analysis in order to compare if and how online news sites differ
from mobile news sites in that regard. The results show that mobile news present
significantly more entertainment and sensationalist-oriented news in comparison to
online news outlets. In addition, mobile news sites were found to feature significantly
fewer public affairs or political stories as top stories. Al-Rawi (2019) further explored
which elements contribute to the “viral” spreading of online news stories on social
media platforms. The results showed that online news readers tend to read, share, and
comment on news stories that were overwhelmingly positive, awe-inspiring, and
unexpected/surprising.
13
Debate characteristics
Gender of debaters
While these studies address some aspect of user interactions with debate
content, there are still many factors within this complex research field that need
further scholarly investigation. Even more importantly in the context of this research
study, communication scholars have widely overlooked the question of how debate
watchers are impacted by specific attributes or characteristics within debates. This
seems even more relevant today, with the palpable increase in argumentation,
polarization, and political partisanship (i.e., Arbatli & Rosenberg, 2021; Koudenburg
& Kashima, 2021). As such, relatively little is known on the affective and cognitive
evaluation mechanisms that debate watchers employ to from opinions and attitudes on
both the topic and protagonists of a debate/conversation. Additionally, previous
research has only peripherally evaluated how different contextual elements within a
debate, such as gender of the debaters, might affect viewers’ perceptions and
evaluation of the debaters and the debate topic itself.
Previous research has largely failed to address how the gender of debate
protagonists impacts viewers’ attitudes and evaluations, especially in the context of
computer-mediated communication. In 2016, after watching the second presidential
debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, two professors from NYU came
up with an interesting idea: they re-created excerpts from each one of the three
debates exactly as they happened but with the sole difference that the gender of the
debaters were switched (Reynolds, 2017). Two actors were instructed to reproduce
the debate dialogue and re-create the verbal and non-verbal communication styles of
the two candidates. The female actor used the same vocal tone, body language and
hand gestures that Trump employed in the actual debate, whereas the male actor re-
14
enacted the verbal and non-verbal communication style of Hillary Clinton. Two
debates were carried out in front of a live audience and audience members were asked
to share their attitudes and opinions on the debate and the debate characters. The
survey results indicated that many of the audience members were shocked to find out
that the attributes that they admired in Hillary Clinton in the actual TV debates no
longer applied when exposed to a “male” version of Hillary Clinton. On the other
hand of the spectrum, many audience members seemed to appreciate the clever tactics
of the “female” Donald Trump, whereas they had remembered this behavior to be
bewildering and destructive coming from the real-life Donald Trump. While this
“experiment” was not conducted in a scientific setting, it does lead to some interesting
questions regarding how individuals engage with and evaluate debater arguments
based on the perceived gender of the debaters, especially in the ever more dominant
online and social media landscape. More specifically, it leads to the interesting
question of how the gender of the debaters impacts viewers’ perceptions and attitudes
toward the debaters and the debate topic.
Previous research has broadly examined how audiences are differently
affected based on whether they are exposed to a male or a female presenter. An early
study (Gilbert, Lee & Chiddix, 1981) examined the impact of a presenter’s gender on
student evaluations (i.e., competence, trustworthiness, and preparedness). The
findings reported that male presenters received overall higher ratings than their female
counterparts, and that female presenter who talked about gender stereotypes were
perceived as least effective and credible. Advertising literature has extensively studied
the impact of male versus female spokesperson on the overall impressions and
evaluations of the target audience. Peirce (2001) conducted an experimental study and
found that both gender and product type impacted the likeability of a spokesperson
15
and the overall impressions of the target audience. More specifically, results
confirmed that male spokespersons were deemed as more appropriate for male-
oriented products (and vice-versa female spokespersons were perceived as more
appropriate for female-oriented product). The authors also reported that the
combination of a female spokesperson and a male product led the audience to believe
that the product was not as male-oriented. Whipple and McManamon (2002)
examined the effectiveness of male and female voices in commercials regarding their
effect on the evaluation of product commercials. The main findings stated that for
neutral products (i.e., non gender-specific products) the announcer’s gender did not
impact individuals’ advertising evaluations. However, when exposed to female-
targeted products (i.e., perfume) with female announcers, participants rated the female
presenters as significantly more pleasant and credible than the identical version with
male announcers. Strach et al. (2015) extended the analysis on the impact of male
versus female voice-over to the realm of political advertising. Like the previous
studies, the authors found that men’s voices induced higher levels of credibility for
masculine topic/issues and female voices engendered higher levels of credibility for
female issues.
Mass communication scholars have also increasingly spent more time
investigating how male or female protagonists are represented in new media channels
and how the articulation of male and female characters affects the evaluation
processes of individual members of an online audience. Veletsianos et al. (2018)
studied how the YouTube audience expresses themselves in comment sections based
on whether they watched a male TED talk presenter or a female TED talk presenter.
The results showed that videos of male presenters elicited more neutral
comments/replies than videos of female presenters. Additionally, the authors found

16
that videos of female presenters led to a more polarized sentiment expression (both
positive and negative) than videos of male presenters. Behm-Morawitz and Mastro
(2009) conducted an experimental study in order to examine the impact of sexualized
female video game characters on gamers’ gender stereotyping. The results suggest
that playing a sexualized version of a female video character negatively influences
perceptions and beliefs about women in the real world.
Given the latitude and variety of research findings regarding the impact of
male versus female presenter on individuals’ evaluation processes, more rigorous and
concise empirical investigations in the domains of online media and mass
communication are needed. While studies such as Veletsianos et al. (2018) and
Behm-Morawitz and Mastro (2009) were able to provide some relevant empirical
insights into the difference in perceptions and attitude formations based on whether
online users were exposed to a male or female online presence, they still do not
provide a coherent theoretical explanation to account for their findings. A major
component of this research study aims to provide a more detailed account of how
different elements and context clues between two online debaters (either male vs
male; female vs female; and male vs female) impact online users’ evaluation and
attitudes. We aim to extend the existing academic knowledge on the impact of
gendered communication in the context of computer-mediated communication and its
associated effects on the online audience. As such, we propose an experimental
investigation through the lens of social role theory and role conformity, which will be
explained in more detail in chapter 3.1.

17
Tone of Debate
The second relevant characteristic in the context of this research study focuses
on the tone in which arguments are presented in a debate. Previous research has
generated some insight in terms of the degree to which the tone of an argument
delivery impacts individuals’ (i.e. viewers, readers or listeners) attitude formation and
evaluation process. In an early study, Lewis (2000) examined the response of
audience members to leaders’ negative emotional expression of arguments. Results
indicated that negative emotional tones (i.e., sadness and anger) had significantly
more negative impact on perceived leader effectiveness than more neutral emotional
displays. Van’T Riet, Schaap, and Kleemans (2018) examined the persuasive impact
of anger in media messages and how it subsequently affects audience members
normative impressions of perceived appropriateness. The authors found that
expressing anger in a persuasive message significantly lowered recipients’ feelings of
perceived appropriateness in comparison to messages containing non-emotional
disagreement. Eckler and Bolls (2011) conducted an experimental study in an
advertising context in which participants were exposed to a viral video which was
either pleasant, unpleasant, or coactive. The authors found that a viral video that was
accompanied by a pleasant tone significantly increased attitudes toward the ad,
attitude toward the brand, and forwarding intentions. Inversely, no significant or weak
effects were detected for viral videos with coactive or unpleasant tones. In another
advertising study, Kroon (2017) conducted an experiment in which participants were
exposed to an advertising online video in which the message contained either a
humoristic tone or a non-humoristic tone. The results suggest that humoristic
advertisement messages led to significantly higher purchase and forwarding intentions
than non-humoristic advertisement messages.

18
Political communication scholars have extensively researched how the tone of
political debates affects audiences’ perceptions and evaluations. Hopmann,
Vliegenthart and Maier (2018) investigated tone and incivility in election debates.
Specifically, the authors collected audience response measurements from three real-
time German chancellor election debates. The results showed that civil and policy-
focused arguments elicited positive reactions and evaluations from the audience
whereas uncivil and person-centered arguments led to significantly fewer positive
reactions. The study further established three dimensions amongst which political
debate statements could be classified: negative versus positive tone, policy versus
person focus and civility versus incivility. Goovaerts and Marien (2020) extended this
line of reasoning and examined the immediate impact of uncivil and simplistic
argumentation style amongst politicians on audience’s level of political trust and
perceived persuasive power toward a political candidate. The results indicated that
uncivil communication generated significantly lower political trust and that the
combination of uncivil and simplistic argumentation negatively affected both political
trust and perceived persuasiveness. In another interesting study, Cavazza (2017)
compared the effects of flattery versus aggression in a political debate on audiences’
emotional state and perceived trustworthiness. The results of the experimental study
demonstrated that debate viewers reported a significant increase in positive emotions
and perceived trustworthiness when politicians were praising their opponents. On the
other hand, when exposed to politicians insulting each other, viewers reported higher
levels of aversion and lower levels of perceived trustworthiness.
While civility and incivility are very useful constructs in the context of
political communication, their definitions and conceptualizations are often somewhat
vague and imprecise. For the purpose of this study, we prefer the dichotomy of
19
aggression (i.e., negative connotation) versus politeness (i.e., positive connotation) as
more meaningful indicators of the tone in which arguments can be presented in a
debate. Previous research has extensively studied the role of aggression in the
deliberation of arguments. Nau and Stewart (2014) examined the impact of verbal
aggression (i.e., character and competence attacks) on individuals’ perceptions of
political speakers. The authors demonstrated that political speakers who employed
aggressive language were found to be significantly less communicatively appropriate
than speakers who employed non-aggressive language.
König and Jucks (2019) conducted an experimental study and investigated the impact
of different argumentative rhetorical styles on individuals’ impressions of credibility
and trustworthiness. The results showed that participants who were exposed to
aggressive argumentation styles reported significantly lower levels of trustworthiness
and deemed the information to be less credible than participants who were exposed to
a neutral argumentation style. In a more recent study, Chu, Yuan, and Liu (2021)
investigated the effects of aggressive language usage in the context of a public
communication debate of Covid-19 related topics. The results showed that
participants who were exposed to communicators that used aggressive language usage
reported higher perceived violations of social norms than participants who were
exposed to non-aggressive language. In a similar study, Yuan and Lu (2020) analyzed
the impact of aggressive communication styles on individuals’ stance on
environmental issues. The results showed that participants who were exposed to an
aggressive discussion on the acceptance of climate change reported significantly
higher levels of psychological reactance and perceptions of norm violations than
participants who were exposed to non-aggressive discussions.

20
The literature on polite communication offers an interesting insight into the
interaction and interrelationship between polite communicators and their target
audience. Previous research suggests that communicators who employ politeness in
their communication strategy tend to be more persuasive and create stronger
relationships with their audience (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000). Drawing from
politeness theory and empirical observations, polite communication may be composed
of two important components: (1) peaceful statement (as opposed to more intensified
emotions) and (2) warmth/closeness (as opposed to attacks on persons) (see Yuan,
Besley, & Ma, 2019). Recent studies have examined how the concept of polite
communication on behalf of the communicator might benefit attitudes and evaluations
of the target audience. Gerbert et al. (2003) examined the message delivery of a
“video doctor” and the subsequent effect on individuals’ smoking and alcohol usage.
Specifically, the authors found that messages that were delivered in a warm, friendly,
and empathetic tone were significant predictors of positive behavioral intention
changes (i.e., reducing or quitting alcohol/smoking).

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Gender Role Theory
A key interest of this dissertation is the intersection of gender, aggression, and
persuasive effects on viewer audiences in the context of video debate communication.
Specifically, the authors are interested in examining how the tone of argument
delivery during a debate (e.g., polite versus aggressive) as well as the gender of the
debaters affect viewers’ attitudes toward the debate or debaters and evaluations on
who won the debate (i.e., which essentially answers the question who they found
more persuasive). In order to provide a more accurate context to this empirical
investigation, we attempt to provide more theoretical context through the lens of
social/gender role theory.
Social role theory is an established theory in sociology that attempts to explain
how societal norms shape individuals’ attitudes and expectations regarding their own
role as well as the role of others in society. In other words, the main tenets of social
role theory argue that individuals align their attitudes and beliefs to a specific set of
social norms and expectations. More accurate and relevant to the purpose of this
empirical investigation, scholars have demonstrated that gender constitutes a crucial
component within the theoretical framework of social role theory. As such, gender
role theory states that specific beliefs about gender arise because individuals observe
male and female behavior and then infer gender-specific attributes and characteristics
to be either “typically male” or “typically female” (see Eagly, 1997; Eagly, Wood, &
Diekman; 2000). In regard to the question of what may be defined as typical male and
typical female behavior, previous research findings have argued that males are often
perceived as more “agentic” and females tend to be perceived as more “communal”.
In other words, females are perceived as being more communicative, polite, friendly,
21
22
open, and nurturing (“communal”), and males are perceived as being more assertive,
dominant, and competitive (“agentic”) (see Bakan, 1966; Madera, Hebl, & Martin,
2009; Ruble & Martin, 1998).
These gender norms and stereotypes constitute an important part of the social
and cultural fabric of society and hence function as relevant markers for individuals to
assess the appropriateness of communication in a societal context. Previous research
has shown that individuals are more likely to signify approval to behavior that is
consistent with existing gender norms or beliefs and more likely to express
disapproval if behavior is inconsistent with existing gender norms (e.g., Eagly &
Wood, 2011; Wood & Eagly, 2010). In this context, Eagly, Makhijani and Klonsky
(1992) conducted a meta-analysis on the evaluation and perception of men and
women in leadership roles. They found that females were evaluated more negatively
than their male counterpart when females carried out their work in a masculine or
agentic leadership role. Other research findings indicated that female speakers are
evaluated more negatively when they engage in “task-oriented” (i.e., agentic) rather
than “people-oriented” (i.e., communal) tasks (Carli, LaFleur, & Loeber, 1995), and
that assertive females (i.e., and agentic trait) are generally perceived more negatively
than non-aggressive females (Powers & Zuroff, 1998). Burgoon, Dillan, and Doran
(1983) specifically examined the interaction between gender, norms, persuasion and
aggression (or non-aggression). Their focus extended to the investigation of how
normative expectations shape individuals’ perceptions on the appropriateness of
communication behavior. The authors found that males were expected to enact more
aggressive persuasive communication behavior and that any deviation from this
expected norm led to a decreased in perceived persuasiveness. Inversely, females
were expected to enact more prosocial/polite communication behavior and any

23
deviation from that norm (i.e., an unexpected aggressive behavior) would lead to a
decrease in perceived persuasiveness. In a similar context, Karakowsky, McBey, and
Miller (2004) conducted an experimental study in which they examined how verbal
interruption behavior changes based on the gender composition of small groups. The
results showed that both men and women demonstrated higher levels of interruption
behavior if the group composition was male dominated, indicating that a male
dominated discussion space creates normative expectations of dominant and assertive
behavior (i.e., which is congruent with the agentic characteristics of male
stereotypes).
Communication research has also extended their efforts in examining gender
differences in online interactions. Most notably, Guadagno and Cialdini (2002)
specifically evaluated subjects’ attitudes after hearing arguments from a same-gender
communicator both through e-mail (CMC) and face-to-face. Results showed that
women report lower levels of perceived agreement in response to the e-mail
communication (i.e., mainly because it less personal), whereas men showed no
difference in terms of perceived agreement toward both modes of communication.
Other studies have shown that males are more confident when interacting through
CMC and that their evaluations and perceptions are more influenced by online
communication partners (Okdie et al., 2013). More relevant to the context of this
study, Jeong & Davidson-Shivers (2003) examined the degree of argumentation in
same-sex and different-sex interactions in an online discussion context. They found
that female subjects were less likely to engage in argumentation during debates
exchanges when compared to their male counterpart. In addition, the results showed
that the interaction pattern that created the least amount of discussion was female-to-
female, followed by male-to-female, female-to-male, and male-to-male interaction.

24
Thomson (2006) investigated the effect of topic of discussion on gendered language
in the context of computer-mediated communication. The results demonstrated that
both men and women were more likely to adhere to gender-based normative
expectations when the topic of discussion was focused on gender-stereotypical issues
(especially when compared to non-gender-stereotypical topics).
Mediators
As stated above, the existing body of research has provided ample evidence
for the theoretical propositions of the social/gender role theory. In addition to the
previously described principles within gender role theory, communication and
psychology scholars have identified relevant mediators that underlie individuals’
sense-making and evaluation processes, specifically in the context of social
evaluations (i.e., as is the case when watching a debate or reading online comments).
In other words, we aim to investigate what mechanisms or mediators might be
responsible for debate viewers’ perception of gender roles and how they subsequently
affect their attitudes and judgement toward the debate/debaters. Previous research has
suggested that within same-sex or different-sex communication/debate contexts some
gender-specific attributes might lead observers to generate gender-conforming or non-
conforming normative expectations. In the context of this study, we therefore propose
a framework where specific attributes/characteristics mediate the relationship between
the interaction of the tone of the online debate (polite vs aggressive) and gender of the
debaters on debate viewers’ perceived attitude toward the debate and the debaters.
Authority
Within the theoretical context of social role theory, perceived authority has
been identified as an important construct regarding individuals’ process of evaluation
of male versus female speakers. While authority is defined in various ways through
25
the academic literature, a prominent definition suggests that authority is “the ability of
an individual or group to influence the actions of others by what they say” (Mailath,
Morris, & Postlewaite, 2017, p. 34). Specifically, scholars have argued that positive
evaluations and assessments of authority are most associated with male spokespersons
as opposed to female spokespersons (see Eagly & Wood, 2011). This difference
seems to be even more significant in situations where viewers are confronted with
aggressive male debaters. The concept of role congruity (Eagly & Karau, 2002)
emphasizes that men who engage in dominant, assertive, and aggressive
communication behavior are more likely to be recognized as persons of competence
and authority. Put in other words, aggressive communication behavior is congruent
with male and agentic characteristics, meaning that aggressive male communication
conforms with observers’ normative expectations of how a male is supposed to
express himself in social situations (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Inversely, female
spokespersons who communicate aggressively will be evaluated more negatively in
terms of perceived authority. Based on the principles of role congruity, aggressive
female communication behavior is non-conforming with observers’ expectations on
how a female is supposed to express herself in social situations (i.e., non-confirm with
communal trait expectations).
Competence
While competence shares conceptual similarities with the concept of authority,
one relevant definition suggests that competence refers to “the knowledge, skills,
values, and attitudes needed to carry out properly an activity important to success in
one’s personal or professional life” (Butler, 1978, p. 7). The mechanism of
competence operates in a similar function to authority. Gender role theory prescribes
that aggressive communication is considered as appropriate behavior for males and

26
the recognition of this appropriate behavior will increase perception of competence,
which in turn will increase attitudes toward the debater and the debater arguments
(see Hyde & Durik, 2005). Within the parameters of role congruity, male
speakers/debaters will be more likely to be perceived as competent if they argue their
point in an aggressive manner as this type of communication conforms with existing
male societal gender norms and expectations. Within the same logic, aggressive
female speakers are more likely to be perceived as less competent as this type of
communication does not conform with existing female gender norms and
expectations.
Credibility
Credibility operates in a similar way to the previous constructs (i.e., authority,
competence). When applying the theoretical logic of gender role theory and role
congruity, previous literature suggests that perceived credibility of a debater increases
whenever his or her expressions and communication behavior is congruent with
existing societal norms and inferences about gender-specific behavior. Given that the
agentic trait of male aggression is synonymous with positive associations amongst
individuals who watch arguments and/or debates (see Eagly et al., 2000; Eagly et al.,
2011), male spokespersons that present their arguments in an aggressive manner tend
to be perceived as more credible, and in turn, tend to engender more positive attitude
toward the debater and the debate arguments.

CHAPTER 4: STUDY FRAMEWORK
Study 1
The aim of study 1 is to conduct a baseline experimental procedure that
illustrates how online users’ attitudes and evaluations are impacted by the mere act of
reading the arguments of two debate protagonists. This experimental set-up
guarantees that debate readers will not be exposed to social cues such as gender or
appearances of the debaters (i.e., the impact of the gender of the debaters will be
specifically addressed in study 2). The debate audience will read arguments that are
either presented in a polite or an aggressive manner. Without any social influence
clues, the authors of this study employ politeness theory to explain how the online
audience is affected by the debate arguments and who they perceive as the winner of
the debate.
Past communication research has highlighted the importance of polite
communication in the inter-dynamic relationship between communicators and their
audience. Brown and Levinson (1987) originally conceptualized the framework of
politeness theory which suggests that politeness can help reduce negative feelings and
mitigate threats to face (i.e., linguistic or non-linguistic acts that lessen the potential
negative perceptions of the communicator and/or audience). Further research has
shown that polite communication is characterized by peaceful verbal expression (in
contrast to the intensity in aggressive communication) and could be defined as
followed: a style of communication “that uses warm language with the attempt to
reinforce recipients’ autonomy or build closeness with them” (Yuan et al., 2019).
Other research has demonstrated that messages that utilize implicit and indirect
language as well as qualifiers such as “maybe” or “perhaps” tends to be received as
less forceful and more polite by the communication recipient (see Miller, Lane,
27
28
Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007). Giving the existing body of literature regarding the
role of politeness and aggressiveness within the theoretical framework of politeness
theories, findings suggest that aggressive communication messages, while potentially
beneficial in terms of adding entertainment value, tend to undermine and weaken
audiences’ perceptions and evaluations of the message originator/communicator.
The tenets of politeness theory have also shown to be valid in terms of
perceptions of debate performance. Hinck and Hinck (2002) examined the usage of
politeness strategies in the context of the vice presidential and presidential debates of
1992. The results showed that candidates predominately refrained from using
aggressive communication strategies and rather employed polite strategies to avoid
losing face in front of the audience. Furthermore, the authors maintained that the
presidential candidate Perot came closest to the audiences’ expectations of a polite,
nonpartisan discussion. Hinck, Hinck, Dailey and Hinck (2013) further expanded the
understanding on the importance of politeness theory in (political) debates by
examining face threats in nine Republican primary debates in 2012. Results showed
that the primaries were overall less threatening and more polite than general campaign
debates.
Given the theoretical logic of politeness theory, the authors of this study
predict that online users who read online debates that are formulated in two different
communication styles (i.e., polite vs aggressive) will have more positive attitudes
toward the polite debater.
More formally, the following hypothesis will be formulated:
H1: Participants who read polite debate messages will have more positive
attitudes toward the debaters than participants who read aggressive debate messages.
29
Study 2
While study 1 examines the baseline scenario under which online users read
polite or aggressive online debate messages, study 2 will extend both the experimental
and theoretical scope under which the audience listens to online debates. More
specifically, the study authors will incorporate gender of the debaters as an additional
variable of interest. We consider to this to be a natural and logical extension of study
1 as most real-life online users are more likely to listen to or watch debate
protagonists rather than just read the debate arguments. Given that in this scenario
debate watchers/listeners will be exposed to different debater gender combinations,
we argue that the theoretical assertions of politeness theory are no longer sufficient to
explain how different gender debate combinations will impact the audiences’ attitudes
and perceptions on who they perceive as the winner of the debate. In other words, if
the gender of the debaters is available as a social cue, we would expect that impact of
the tone of the argument delivery (polite vs aggressive) on online viewers’ attitudes
and perceptions on the winner of the debate are largely dependent on the gender of the
debaters.
As such, study 2 specifically test the theoretical assumptions of gender role
theory and role conformity within the context of online debates and how different
debater gender combinations (both debaters male, both debaters female, or male vs
female) and argument tone delivery (aggressive or polite) affect listeners/viewers’
attitudes and perceptions on who won the debate through the indirect and mediated
pathways of perceived authority, competence, and credibility.
Gender role theory and role conformity have several assumptions that will be
reflected in the postulated hypothesis. (1) Individuals tend to categorize and evaluate
other individuals based on existing societal norms and beliefs; specifically, “agentic”
30
attributes such as aggression, or directness, tend to be perceived as being
characteristic of male behavior, whereas “communal” behavior such as politeness, or
agreeableness tend to be perceived as being characteristic of female behavior (see
Eagly et al., 2002; Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012); (2) Individuals will evaluate male and
female spokespersons differently based on whether they communicate congruently
with existing societal gender norms and roles; aggressive communication behavior is
congruent with societal expectations on how male individuals are supposed to express
themselves whereas polite communication behavior is congruent with societal
expectations on how female individuals are supposed to express themselves (see
Eagly et al., 2000); (3) When individuals observe congruence between male or
female’s communication behavior and their expectations, they will evaluate them
more positively; when individuals observe incongruence between male or female’s
communication behavior and their expectations, they will evaluate them more
negatively (see Eagly et al., 2002).
In addition, previous research on gender role theory has established that
specific attributes such as authority, competence, and credibility function as
mediating variables within the evaluation process of debating spokespersons and
individuals’ attitude formation process regarding this spokesperson (see previous
argumentation). For the purpose of this study, we will apply the logic of the
assumptions of gender role theory and role congruity on the specific situation where
the debate audience is exposed to online conversations with two debaters. Hence, we
first consider how different debate genders (male or female) and argument tone
delivery (aggressive or polite) interact within the theoretical construct of gender role
theory and how it affects online users’ attitudes toward the debate arguments and the
debaters through the mediating effects of authority, competence, and credibility.

31
[Insert Figure 1 here]
Within the theoretical paradigm of social role theory and role congruity, we
predict that when online viewers are exposed to male debaters who debate
aggressively, this will elicit online viewers to experience high levels of perceived
authority, competence and credibility (i.e., due to perceptions of congruity between
gender norm expectations and the observed male communication behavior), which in
turn will lead to a positive attitude toward the male debaters and the debate
arguments. On the other hand, we would expect that when online viewers are exposed
to female debaters who debate aggressively, this will elicit online viewers to
experience low levels of perceived authority, competence and credibility (i.e., due to
perceptions of incongruity between gender norm expectations and the observed
female communication behavior), which in turn will lead to a negative attitude toward
the female debaters and the debate arguments. Additionally, we would expect that
online viewers who are exposed to polite male debaters would experience low levels
of perceived authority, competence and credibility (i.e., due to perceptions of
incongruity between gender norm expectations and the observed male communication
behavior), which in turn would lead to a negative attitude toward the male debaters
and debate arguments. Similarly, we would expect that online viewers who are
exposed to polite female debaters would experience high levels of perceived
authority, competence, and credibility (i.e., due to perceptions of congruity between
gender norm expectations and the observed female communication behavior), which
in turn, would lead to a positive attitude toward the female debaters and the debate
arguments. More formally, the emerging hypotheses will be postulated as followed:

32
H2a: Participants who watch an online video between two aggressive male
debaters will experience more positive attitude towards the debate arguments and the
debaters than subjects who watch an online video between two polite male debaters.
This effect will be mediated by perceived authority, competence, and credibility.
H2b: Participants who watch an online video between two polite female
debaters than subjects who watch an online video between two aggressive female
debaters. This effect will be mediated by perceived authority, competence, and
credibility.
While the previous hypotheses address the situations in which online users are
exposed to same-sex debater pairs, the tenets of gender role theory and their impact
on online users’ attitudes are also expected to be reflected in scenarios where the
debaters are of opposite gender (i.e., male debater vs female debater). More
specifically, we predict that when online viewers are exposed to a male-female debate
pairing that debates aggressively, this will elicit online viewers to experience high
levels of perceived authority, competence and credibility toward the male debater
(i.e., and inversely low levels of perceived authority, competence and credibility
toward the female debater), which in turn will lead to a positive attitude toward the
male debater and debate arguments (i.e., negative attitude toward the female debater
and debate arguments). Further, we predict that when online viewers are exposed to a
male-female debate pairing that debates politely, this will elicit online viewers to
experience high levels of perceived authority, competence and credibility toward the
female debater (i.e., and inversely low levels of perceived authority, competence and
credibility toward the male debater), which in turn will lead to a positive attitude
33
toward the female debater and debate arguments (i.e., negative attitude toward the
male debater and debate arguments).
H2c: Participants who watch an online video between an aggressive male
debater and an aggressive female debater will experience more positive attitude
towards the male debater and debate arguments than towards the female counterpart.
H2d: Participants who watch an online video between a polite male debater
and a polite female debater will experience more positive attitude towards the female
debater and debate arguments than towards the male counterpart.
Relevant co-variables: Pre-existing gender norms, argument strength
It is important to note that previous research has identified other relevant
variables that may affect debate viewers’ attitudes and evaluations on who is
perceived as the winner of the debate (i.e., variables other than gender of debater and
debate tone, which are part of the main experimental manipulation). While the
researchers predict that gender of the debater and debate will account for most of the
variance in the outcome variables, the role of three other co-variables (pre-existing
gender norms, argument strength, and perceived attractiveness) need to be discussed
in more detail.
Pre-existing gender norms/perceptions of gender equality
Early research suggested that individual differences in terms of the perception
of typically “male” or typically “female” characteristics could be assessed by
employing self-reported measurements (see Kolb, 1999). More specifically,
measurements of gender role attitudes indicate that individuals who score above the
mean on masculinity scales and below the mean on femininity scales possess a
masculine gender orientation/worldview whereas individuals who score below the

34
mean on masculinity scales and above the mean on femininity scales possess a
feminine gender orientation/worldview. Within a more traditional gender role
worldview/orientation, masculine traits and behaviors are often characterized as “self-
reliant, independent, assertive, dominant, and ambitious” (Kolb, 1999, p. 307), and
feminine traits are often described as “affectionate, compassionate, sympathetic,
tender, and warm” (Kolb, 1999, p. 307). It should be noted that most of the existing
communication and psychology research has focused on discriminatory beliefs and
sexist attitudes of males towards more feminine gender roles (i.e., see Check,
Malamuth, Elias, & Barton, 1985; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995; Payne, Lonsway, &
Fitzgerald, 1999). More recently, a small subset of studies have acknowledged that
sexist attitudes are not necessarily one-directional (i.e., meaning they originate from
men and are directed towards women) and that women can have sexist attitudes
towards men, especially in the context of interpersonal and romantic relationships
(see Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010; Travaglia, Overall, & Sibley, 2009).
Instead of categorizing gender role attitudes or gender role beliefs along male
or female gender orientation, past research has identified perceptions of gender
equality as a more reliable and indicative construct to measure individual differences
of gender role attitudes amongst both men and women (see Garcia-Cueto et al., 2015).
As such, low scores on a gender role attitude scale would indicate increased
adherence to traditional gender norms and high scores would indicate reduced
adherence to traditional gender norms. For instance, if an individual agrees with the
statement that house chores should not be allocated by sex this would be more
indicative of a person who does not adhere to traditional gender norms and beliefs
whereas a person disagreeing with this statement would be indicative of a person who
does adhere to more traditional gender norms.

35
This observation could also be reflected to some degree in the experimental
model of the above study design. When debate viewers that share traditional pre-
existing gender norms or views on gender equality are exposed to any configuration
of debate pairings, they would be more likely to have positive evaluations and
attitudes towards aggressive males and polite females, and less positive evaluations
towards polite males and aggressive females. The rationale behind this prediction
would be that viewers holding more traditional gender views are more likely to
perceive aggressive male and polite female debaters to conform with their traditional
expectations as to how a man/woman is expected to communicate their ideas (i.e.,
males are expected to be more aggressive and persuasive in their communication
style). On the other hand, viewers that hold less traditional pre-existing gender norms
would be less likely to draw gender-stereotypical comparisons between the aggressive
male and the polite male or the aggressive female and the polite female.
Argument strength
In communication and persuasion literature, argument strength is widely
investigated by scholars to explain the impact that different structures of
argumentation can have on a viewing or listening audience. Early research (i.e.,
Toulmin, 1958) maintained that the construct of an argument can be broken into four
distinctive components: “ a claim (the conclusion whose merits are to be established);
data (the facts that are used to support the claim); warrants (the reasons that are used
to justify the connections between the data and the claim); and backing (the basic
assumptions that provide the justification for particular warrants)” (p.35). In a more
recent research effort, Von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, and Simon (2008)
examined verbal discussions between pupils in science class. The authors identified
patterns of argumentation of higher quality which often contained warrants and

36
backing, and patterns of argumentation of lower quality, which were mostly based on
unwarranted claims. In his research studies, Johnson-Laird (2010) offered a mental
model account of argumentation. The author maintained that when evaluating
arguments, individuals create an internal “mental model” of reality, suggesting that
individuals evaluate arguments for and against a conclusion by constructing both the
composition of the arguments and the mental model of their relative strength.
Other scholars have criticized the purely structural characterization of
argument strength within Toulmin’s (1958) framework, the main point of contention
being that this simplistic model would not allow to adequately and reliably distinguish
between data points of greater and lesser relevance (Corner & Hahn, 2009).
Communication literature has determined several factors as important variables to
understand argument strength such as source reliability (Pornpitakpan & Francis,
2000), ability to evaluate evidence (Taber & Lodge, 2006), and need for cognition
(Hosman, Huebner, & Siltanen, 2002). However, previous research efforts have
generally lacked in terms of providing a coherent and consistent model of explanation
on what influences the strength of an argument.
This research study acknowledges that perceived argument strength might be a
relevant factor in terms of its impact on viewers’ assessments and evaluations of
debaters’ gender and debate tone. Pre-testing has been identified as an appropriate
measure to identify the relative strength of an argument (see Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
In the context of this study, the authors believe that constructing the arguments within
the experimental manipulation in such a way that there would be no significant
differences in perceived argument strength would reduce any potential cofounding
effects of argument strength on the experimental model.

37
Study 3
Study 3 extends the previous investigation by introducing the scenario in
which the two debaters (i.e., same-sex or different-sex) express their arguments in
opposing debate tones. While the previous study specifically focuses on differing
gender compositions among the debaters (male vs male; female vs female; male vs
female) while keeping the debate style constant, the second study emphasizes debate
situations in which the debaters have opposing debate styles (i.e. aggressive vs polite).
In order to generate hypotheses in terms of how the interaction of differing debate
styles and gender impacts online viewers’ attitudes and perception on who won the
debate, the authors of this study will once again apply the theoretical logic of gender
role theory and role conformity.
Another important outcome variable within this research relates to the
evaluation of who the online audience perceives as the winner of the debate. In other
words, we aim to extend our understanding on the previously described assertions
about the impact of gender role theory in the context of watching online debates by
conceptualizing and analyzing an additional outcome variable: perceived winner of
the debate.
In the situation where two males debate each other (i.e., one male debates
aggressively and the other male debates politely), viewers will perceive the aggressive
male to be more persuasive and convincing due to the perceived gender norm roles
that males are “supposed” to argue more assertively and aggressively. In other words,
aggressive male communication behavior will be perceived as more conform to
existing male gender roles/norms whereas polite male communication behavior will
be perceived as non-conform to perceived male gender norms. As such, when debate
viewers are confronted with a male debate with the binary choice of aggressive versus
38
polite argumentation, viewers will perceive the aggressive debater more favorably,
which will lead to positive perceptions of authority, competence, and credibility, and
the declaration that the aggressive male debater won the debate. On the other hand,
when online viewers are exposed to two females debating each other, such that one
debates aggressively and the other debates politely, viewers will perceive the polite
female to be more persuasive and convincing due to the perceived gender norm roles
that females are “supposed” to argue in a more polite and communal-oriented manner.
More specifically, polite female communication behavior will be perceived as more
conform to existing female gender roles/norms whereas aggressive female
communication behavior will be perceived as non-conform to existing female gender
norms. Consequentially, when viewers are exposed to a debate between an aggressive
female and a polite female, viewers will have higher perceptions of credibility,
competence, and authority towards the polite female, which in turn leads them to
declare the polite female debater as the winner of the debate.
The hypotheses would be formulated as followed:
H3a: Participants who watch an online debate between an aggressive male
and a polite male debater will perceive the aggressive male as the winner of the
debate. This effect will be mediated by perceived authority, competence, and
credibility.
H3b: Participants who watch an online debate between an aggressive female
and a polite female debater will perceive the polite female as the winner of the debate.
This effect will be mediated by perceived authority, competence, and credibility.
While the previous scenarios have clear predictions within the theoretical
framework of gender role theory, the impact of the gender of the debaters on viewers’
attitudes and perceptions of who won the debate will be less salient in situations
39
where the two debate protagonists exhibit socially desirable or socially undesirable
gender norms. For instance, if online viewers are exposed to an aggressive male
debater and a polite female debater, gender role theory would maintain that both
genders are exhibiting socially desirable communication behavior (i.e.,
aggression/assertiveness aligns with the agentic expectations of male gender norms;
politeness aligns with the communal expectations of female gender norms), and
hence, both debate protagonists would be viewed positively by the audience.
In the scenario where online viewers are exposed to an aggressive female
debater and a polite male debater, gender role theory would maintain that both
genders are exhibiting socially undesirable communication behavior (i.e.,
aggression/assertiveness does not align with the communal expectations of female
gender norms; politeness does not align with the agentic expectations of male gender
norms), and hence, both debate protagonists would be viewed negatively by the
audience. As such, whenever viewers are exposed to two opposing debate genders
that are debating in opposing styles (i.e., aggressive vs polite), we would ascertain
that gender no longer becomes as relevant in terms of determining of who is the
winner of the debate. In other words, since attitudes and perceptions are perceived to
be equally positive or negative based on the gender and debate style constellation, we
would ascertain that the impact of gender is less salient in the aforementioned
conditions, and as such online viewers would revert back to the theoretical logic of
politeness theory, as well as the aforementioned co-variates of perceived argument
strength, perceived attractiveness, and pre-existing gender attitudes, which maintain
that audience members deem politeness as preferable over aggressiveness if other
social cues are absent or perceived to be less relevant.
The relevant hypothesis would be formulated as followed:

40
H3c: Participants who watch an online debate between an aggressive female
(polite female) and a polite male (aggressive male) perceive the polite debater as the
winner of the debate.

CHAPTER 5: EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES/METHOD
Pre-Test
Before running the main experimental studies of this research study, the
researchers pre-tested the experimental stimuli. Specifically, whether participants
perceived polite arguments as polite and aggressive arguments as aggressive.
Additionally, participants were asked to evaluate perceived argument strength for
both polite and aggressive arguments.
In order to reduce reading fatigue for participants, the researchers divided the
pre-test participants into 4 groups. Each of the groups would be provided with a
complete argument exchange including two polite arguments and two aggressive
arguments, which the participants then were asked to rate according to their perceived
politeness, perceived aggressiveness, and perceived argument strength. Specifically,
for every argument, participants were provided a perceived politeness rating scale
(i.e., ranging from 1-7), a perceived aggressiveness scale (i.e., ranging from 1-7), and
a perceived argument strength scale (i.e., ranging from 1-10).
Descriptive Analysis
The sample comprised a total of 81 participants, of which 44.4 % (n = 36)
were male, 55.6 % (n = 45) were female. In terms of race, most respondents identified
themselves as White (n = 61), followed by Asian (n = 10), African American (n = 6),
and other (n = 4).
Result
The results showed that for all 8 polite arguments tested, participants
perceived polite arguments (M =5.74, SD =1.04) as significantly more polite than
aggressive (M = 2.34, SD = 1.31), t(80) = 29.43, p < .005. As expected, polite
arguments were indeed perceived as polite.
41
42
Further, the results showed that participants perceived aggressive arguments
(M = 4.99, SD = 1.14) as significantly more aggressive than polite (M = 2.94, SD =
1.05), t(80)= 16.23, p < .05. As expected, aggressive arguments were perceived as
aggressive.
Lastly, pre-test analysis showed perceived argument strength was significantly
higher for polite arguments (M = 6.99, SD = 1.60) than for aggressive arguments (M
= 5.33, SD = 1.72), t(80)= 9.82, p < .05.

43
Study 1
Descriptive Sample Analysis
The sample comprised a total of 119 participants, of which 31.9% (n = 38)
were male, 67.2% (n = 80) were female, and 1 person preferred not to say. The
average age of the participants was 41.34 (SD = 12.81). In terms of race, most
respondents identified themselves as White (n = 108), followed by Asian (n = 4),
African American (n = 3), and other (n = 4).
Study Design/Procedure
This baseline experimental study only consists of one variable (Debate tone)
with 2 conditions (aggressive vs polite). Participants were randomly assigned to one
of these two conditions. Participants were recruited online through Amazon
Mechanical Turk. The questionnaire was created and distributed to the participants
online through Qualtrics. Participants were told that the ostensible purpose of this
study is to examine online users’ opinion and evaluation of online debates. After
indicating consent to participate in the study, participants were asked to provide
demographic information including age, gender, ethnicity, and education level. Then,
pre-experiment questionnaires were shown to the participants asking them to provide
information on their social media usage behavior, pre-existing gender attitudes, pre-
existing attitudes toward the debate topic, and other relevant control variables.
Following this, participants were told to read one of two debate scripts. The
scripts consisted of a debate/conversation exchange between two debate protagonists
on the issue of constructing a new shopping mall in Des Moines, Iowa. In one version
of the script, the debaters had a polite conversation. In the second version of the
script, the debaters had an aggressive conversation. The debate was comprised of five
total argument exchanges. In these exchanges one debater presented a polite

44
(aggressive) argument in favor of constructing a new shopping mall in Des Moines
and one debater responded with a polite (aggressive) argument against the
construction of a new shopping mall.
To give a direct illustration on how this exchange functions practically in
study 1, the first exchange will be a discussion on the impact of new shopping malls
on the economy. In the polite condition, the first debater opens the exchange by
saying: “I firmly believe that constructing a new mall in the city center of Des Moines
will positively benefit the economy and strengthen the local consumer confidence.
The mall will open many opportunities for local vendors to promote and sell their
products. Not to mention the opening of the mall will increase consumers’ purchase
intentions and stimulate the growth of the local and state economy. The second
debater then responds: “I understand your point, but I think that constructing a new
mall in the city center will negatively affect the local economy. Specifically, I believe
that the local vendors would see a negative impact on their sales to the point that they
would probably have to close their businesses. So, while the opening of a mall might
increase consumer purchase intention in the short term it could have very negative
economic consequences for local small businesses.”
The identical procedure will take place in the second experimental condition
with the only difference being both debaters presenting their arguments aggressively.
All the exchanges will have similar length and only the tone in which the arguments
are presented will be manipulated by the experimenter (i.e., aggressive vs polite).
Measurements
Attitude toward the debaters. This variable aims to measure the perceived
attitude toward the debaters using six semantical attitude items on a 7 point scale:
45
wise-foolish, good-bad, favorable-unfavorable, positive-negative, right-wrong,
acceptable-unacceptable (adapted from Burgoon et al., 1986).
Result
In order to test hypothesis 1, the researchers ran an independent samples-test
to compare attitude toward the debaters (i.e., scores for debater 1 and debater 2 were
aggregated and transformed into a combined variable) in participants who read a
debate between polite debaters and participants who read a debate between aggressive
debaters. There was a significant difference in the scores for the polite debate (M =
4.92, SD = 1.34) and aggressive debate (M = 4.38, SD = .78) conditions; t(90.60) =
2.65. The results suggests that individuals who read a debate between two polite
debaters will have more positive attitudes toward the debaters than individuals who
read a debate between two aggressive debaters. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.

46
Study 2
The sample comprised of a total of 344 participants, of which 47.7% (n = 164)
were male, 48.5% (n = 167) were female, and 13 persons identified as non-
binary/third gender (3.8%). The average age of the participants was 28.12 (SD =
8.47). In terms of race, most respondents identified themselves as White (n = 234),
followed by Other (n = 55), African American (n = 44), Asian (n = 9), and American
Indian or Alaska Native (n = 2).
The study design was a 2 (tone of debate: aggressive vs polite) x 3 (debater
sex: both male vs both female vs male and female) between-subjects factorial
experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to six experimental conditions: (1)
aggressive debate between two male debaters; (2) aggressive debate between two
female debaters; (3) aggressive debate between male and female debaters; (4) polite
debate between two male debaters; (5) polite debate between two female debaters;
and (6) polite debate between male and female debaters. The questionnaire was
created and distributed to the participants online through Qualtrics. Participants were
told that the ostensible purpose of this study was to examine online users’ opinion and
evaluation of online debates. After indicating consent to participate in the study,
participants were asked to provide demographic information including age, gender,
ethnicity, and education level. Then, pre-experiment questionnaires were shown to the
participants asking them to provide information on their social media usage behavior,
pre-existing attitudes toward the debate topic, and other relevant control variables.
Following this, participants were randomly assigned to listen to an audio file
featuring two debaters who used the identical script from the previous study. The two
47
debate protagonists were professional voice actors who were fairly compensated for
their contributions (i.e., same for study 3). Two factors were manipulated within the
experimental design: first, the experimenters manipulated the gender of the two
debaters, such that the participants were exposed to either two male debaters, two
female debaters, or a male person debating a female person. Second, the
experimenters manipulated the tone in which the debaters present their arguments.
More specifically, the participants were be exposed to a debater who presents their
arguments in an aggressive manner or to a debater who presents their arguments in a
polite manner. The online debate was comprised of a total of five argument
exchanges. In each of these exchanges, the first male or female debater presented an
argument in favor of the construction of a new shopping mall in either an aggressive
or polite manner. The second male or female debater will then respond to that
argument against the construction of a new shopping mall either in an aggressive or
polite manner.
In all experimental conditions the debaters engaged in four pro (i.e., in favor
of construction of shopping mall) and contra (i.e., against construction of shopping
mall) exchanges. The debate audio in all experimental conditions will have an
approximate length of three minutes. It should also be noted that for this study, the
experimenters focused on keeping the debate manner consistent among the two
debaters. In other words, the online debate audio consisted either of two aggressive
male debaters, two aggressive female debaters, aggressive male and aggressive
female debaters or two polite male debaters, two polite female debaters, polite male
and polite female debaters.

48
After viewing one of the experimental conditions, participants were asked
questions regarding their perceived competence, confidence, authority, politeness, and
agreeableness of each debater, and their overall attitude toward each of the debaters.
Measurements
Attitude toward the debaters. Identical to study 1
Perceived competence of debater. The perceived competence of debaters was
assessed using three semantical items on a 5-point measurement scale. The items in
question were unintelligent-intelligent, incompetent-competent, unqualified-qualified
(i.e., adapted from McCroskey, Holdridge & Toomb, 1974)
Perceived authority of debater. The perceived authority of the debater was
assessed using the epistemic authority scale (i.e., adapted from Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv,
& Abin, 1993). The scale contains 17 items that were measured on a continuous 6-
point rating scale ranging from 1 “definitely agree” to 6 “definitely disagree”.
Exemplary items are “His opinions influence my behavior” and “In my opinion
he/she is careful to be precise with facts”.
Perceived credibility of debater. Debaters’ credibility was assessed using a
semantic differential scale with 8 items (adapted from Ohanian, 1990). The items in
questions were attractive/unattractive, classy/classless, sincere/insincere,
reliable/unreliable, trustworthy/untrustworthy, expert/inexpert,
experienced/inexperienced, and skilled/unskilled. The items were measured on a 5-
point scale.
Result
In order to test hypotheses H2a and H2b, the researchers ran a moderated
mediation analyses using a PROCESS macro (i.e., model 8) (Hayes, 2013).
PROCESS is a computational tool that enables users to translate a complex

49
conceptual model into a set of OLS regression equations. For the purpose of this
study, we utilized 5,000 bootstrap samples of the data with replacements. Tone of
debater was entered as the independent variable; attitude toward the debaters was
entered as the dependent variable. Pre-existing gender attitude was entered as a co-
variable. Perceived authority, perceived competence, and perceived credibility were
entered as mediators. Finally, gender of debaters, which has a moderating relationship
with tone of debaters, was entered as moderator.
The analysis revealed that the overall model was significant on the mediators,
perceived credibility (F(4,275) = 12.22, p = .00, R2 = .15), perceived competence
(F(4,275) = 11.84, p = .00, R2 = .14), and perceived authority (F(4,275) = 9.31, p =
.00, R2 = .12). The analysis of the model explicated the effect of the direct effects and
interaction effects between the two predictors on each of the mediators in the model.
Specifically, it was found that the direct effect of debater tone was significant on all
three mediators, perceived credibility (b = .4894, t(4,275) = 3.14, p = .002), perceived
competence (b = .5088, t(4,275) = 2.65, p = .009), and perceived authority (b = .4426,
t(4,275) = 3.16, p = .002). However the two-interaction of tone of debaters and gender
of debaters was found to be insignificant on the mediators perceived credibility (b =
.4894, t(4,275) = 3.14, p = .61), perceived competence (b = .5088, t(4,275) = 2.65, p =
.94), and perceived authority (b = .4426, t(4,275) = 3.16, p = .30).
[Insert Table 1 here]
The analysis of the model also explicated the effect of each of the mediators
on the outcome variable (i.e., attitude toward the debaters). Specifically, it was found
that the effect of perceived credibility (b = .40, t(7,272) = 3.39, p = .0008), perceived
competence (b = .29, t(7,272) = 3.22, p = .001), and perceived authority (b = .33,
t(7,272) = 3.41, p = .0008) on attitude toward the debaters was significant.

50
Further, the model explained statistical support for a partial mediation,
specifically that tone of the debate significantly affected attitude toward the debaters
through the mediators of perceived credibility, perceived competence, and perceived
authority AND that tone of the debate directly impacts attitudes toward the debaters.
The results of the direct effect analysis show that participants who were
exposed to two polite male debaters had significantly higher attitudes toward the
debaters than participants who were exposed to two aggressive male debaters. In
addition, participants who were exposed to two polite female debaters had
significantly higher attitudes toward the debaters than participants who were exposed
to two aggressive female debaters. Hypothesis 2a predicted that participants who
watch an online video between two aggressive male debaters will experience more
positive attitude towards the debate arguments and the debaters than subjects who
watch an online video between two polite male debaters, and that this effect will be
mediated by perceived authority, competence, and credibility. H2a was rejected. H2b
predicted that participants who watch an online video between two polite female
debaters than subjects who watch an online video between two aggressive female
debaters. This effect will be mediated by perceived authority, competence, and
credibility. H2b was partially confirmed.
Study 2 Discussion
The results from study 2 have provided partial support for our initial
hypotheses. Specifically, polite female debaters were perceived more favorably than
aggressive male debaters. This finding is in line with our theoretical predictions of
51
gender role theory, which suggests that politeness conforms more with individuals’
perceptions of female communication behavior, and hence leads to more positive
attitudes amongst the audience than aggression. Contrary to our predictions, polite
male debaters were also perceived more favorably than aggressive male debaters,
which was counter-intuitive to our initial theoretical predictions.
Additionally, we found empirical support for the notion that perceived
credibility, competence, and authority were significant mediators in our theoretical
model. However, we only found support for the indirect effect of tone of debaters
(i.e., no significant interaction effect between tone of debaters and gender of debaters
was detected) on audience’s attitude toward the debaters. Specifically, we found that
participants who were exposed to polite debaters had significantly higher attitudes
towards the debaters as compared to participants who were exposed to aggressive
debaters. More detailed conversations on the empirical and theoretical implications of
these findings will be conducted in the discussions section.

52
Study 3
The sample comprised a total of 247 participants, of which 49.4% (n = 122)
were male, 48.6% (n = 120) were female, and 5 persons identified as non-binary/third
gender (3.8%). The average age of the participants was 32.20 (SD = 10.57). In terms
of race, most respondents identified themselves as White (n = 145), followed by
African American (n = 71), Other (n = 23), and Asian (n = 9).
While the experimental design of study 2 focuses on same-sex or different-sex
pairings that are debating either in a polite or aggressive manner with each other,
study 3 explores the experimental conditions in which participants are exposed to
debate pairings that have differing debate styles (i.e., such that one debater argues in a
polite way and the other debater argues in an aggressive manner): As such, the study
design will be a 2 (sex of aggressive debater: male vs female) x 2 (sex of polite
debater: male vs female) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants will be
randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: (1) Aggressive male
debater versus polite male debater; (2) aggressive male debater versus polite female
debater; (3) aggressive female debater versus polite female debater; (4) aggressive
female debater versus polite male debater.
Much like study 2, participants were told the ostensible purpose of the study is
to examine online users’ opinion and evaluation of online debates. After indicating
consent and proceeding through the same questionnaire as participants in study 2,
participants of study 3 were randomly assigned to listen to an audio file featuring two
debaters who argue about the topic of the construction of a new shopping mall in Des
Moines (i.e., same as in study 1 and 2). Two factors were manipulated within the
53
experimental design: first, the experimenters manipulated the sex of the aggressive
debater, such that the aggressive debater is either male or female. Second, the
experimenters manipulated the sex of the polite debater, such that the polite debater is
either male or female. Like the previous studies, the debate in study 3 had the
identical script on the construction of a new shopping mall and was comprised of four
total argument exchanges.
In all experimental conditions the debaters engaged in four pro (i.e., in favor
of the construction of a shopping mall) and four contra (i.e., against the construction
of a shopping mall) exchanges.
Measurements
Perceived winner of the debate. Participants will be directly asked who they
thought won the debate. The question will be formulated as followed: “In your
opinion who won the debate?” Answers will be recorded on a continuous rating scale
ranging from -4 (definitely debater 1) to (neither debater 1 nor debater 2) to + 4
(definitely debater 2) (adapted from Munro et al., 2012).
Result
In order to test hypotheses H4a, H4b, and H4c, we ran a moderated mediation
analyses using a PROCESS macro (i.e., model 8) (Hayes, 2013). For the purpose of
this study, we utilized 5000 bootstrap samples of the data with replacements. Gender
of aggressive debater was entered as the predictor; attitude toward the debaters was
entered as the outcome variable. Pre-existing gender attitude was entered as co-
variate. Perceived authority, perceived competence, and perceived credibility were
entered as mediators. Perceived winner of the debate was entered as the outcome
variable. Finally, gender of polite debater, which has a moderating relationship with
gender of aggressive debater, was entered as moderator.

54
The analysis revealed that the overall model was insignificant on the
mediators, perceived credibility (F(4,232) = .78, p = .54, R2 = .01), perceived
competence (F(4,232) = .50, p = .73, R2 = .009), and perceived authority (F(4,232) =
1.00, p = .41, R2 = .02). The analysis of the model explicated the effect of the direct
effects and interaction effects between the two predictors on each of the mediators in
the model. Specifically, it was found that the direct effect of gender of aggressive
debater was not significant on all three mediators, perceived credibility (b = .12,
t(4,232) = .70, p = .49), perceived competence (b = .26, t(4,232) = 1.01, p = .73), and
perceived authority (b = .01, t(4,232) = .06, p = .95). In addition, the direct effect of
gender of polite debater was not significant on all three mediators, perceived
credibility (b = .11, t(4,232) = .65, p = .52), perceived competence (b = .16, t(4,232) =
.63, p = .53), and perceived authority (b = .009, t(4,232) = .05, p = .96). The two-way
interaction of tone of debaters and gender of debaters was found to be insignificant on
the mediators perceived credibility (b = -.11, t(4,232) = -1.02, p = 31), perceived
competence (b = -1.16, t(4,232) = -.96, p = .34), and perceived authority (b = .-013,
t(4,232) = -.12 , p = .91).
The analysis of the model also explicated the effect of each of the mediators
on the outcome variable (i.e., attitude toward the debaters). Specifically, it was found
that the effect of perceived credibility (b = -.46, t(7,206) = -.81, p = .42), perceived
competence (b = -.08, t(7,206) = -.23, p = 82), and perceived authority (b = .40,
t(7,206) = .81, p = .41) on perceived winner of the debate were not significant.
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c were not confirmed.

55
Study 3 Discussion
The results of the statistical analysis did not lend support to our initial
hypotheses. We posited that individuals who were exposed to two debaters with
different debate styles (i.e., polite vs aggressive) would guide their perception on who
won the debate based on the theoretical principles of gender role theory. Specifically,
we maintained that aggressive male debaters and polite female debaters would be
perceived more favorably and declared as the winner of the debate over polite male
and aggressive female debaters. However no significant differences between the
groups were detected in our statistical analysis.
A more thorough discussion on the research findings will be conducted in the
following General Discussion chapter.

CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION
Watching and participating in debates constitute the cornerstone of a
functional democracy. This research study aimed to explore multiple factors within
the complex and dynamic interaction between debate participants and the audience of
a debate. Specifically, the authors of this study highlighted the importance and
relevance of two variables; (1) the tone in which the debaters present their arguments,
and (2) the gender of the debaters. Three experiments were conducted and tested
within the theoretical frameworks of politeness theory and gender role theory.
The first study addressed the sole impact of debate tone on audiences’
perceptions and attitudes toward the debaters. The results confirmed the main
predictions and assumptions of politeness theory such that recipients who were
exposed to polite debaters had significantly more positive attitudes toward the
debaters than recipients who were exposed to aggressive debaters. This finding is in
line with the theoretical principles of politeness theory which asserts that politeness
plays an essential role in increasing formality and social distance in social interactions
and provides a mean to cover any negative emotions such as fear, anger, or
embarrassment that might occur during communication (see Brown & Levinson,
1987; Spiers, 1998). Specifically, results of study 1 suggest than debate audience
members prefer polite communication between debaters over aggressive
communication between debaters. This seems especially relevant given the lack of
identifying cues that the debate audience had at their disposal (i.e., participants were
asked to read the debate arguments only). This further suggests that polite debating
might be especially relevant and important in communication contexts that are
56
57
missing important context clues such as gender, perceived attractiveness, perceived
competence, etc. As previous research has suggested, politeness serves as a function
that is expected in a civil conversation (Fraser, 1990), maintains the integrity between
the conversation participants (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and helps to save face or
avoid unpleasant situations.
However, politeness theory has encountered criticism from communication
and sociology scholars. Mainly, researchers have argued that politeness might not
always be the most suitable or “best” alternative in a communication or debate
context (see Eelen, 2014). As such, gender role theory proposes that the gender of the
communicator/debater in conjunction with the tone in which the arguments are
presented affects the recipients/audience perceptions, evaluations, and attitudes of the
debaters (Eagly & Revelle, 2022). In other words, depending on the tone in which
male of female debaters present their arguments, aggressive communication might be
preferred over polite communication. To investigate how the additional presence of
the gender of the debater impacts audiences’ attitudes, we conducted a second
experiment in which participants were exposed to combinations of debate dyads that
differed in their gender composition (male or female) and debate tone (polite or
aggressive). Our initial hypotheses were guided by gender role theory and maintained
that a male debater who utilizes an aggressive communication style would lead
audience members to have higher perceived feelings of competence, credibility, and
authority toward the debater (i.e., aggressiveness is perceived to be more conform
with societal expectations about “appropriate” male communication behavior), and
subsequently lead to more positive attitudes than a male debater who uses a polite
communication style. On the other hand, we predicted that a female debater who
utilizes a polite communication style would lead audience members to have higher
58
perceived feelings of competence, credibility, and authority toward the debater (i.e.,
politeness is perceived to be more conform with societal expectations about
“appropriate” female communication behavior), and subsequently lead to more
positive attitudes than a male debater who uses a polite communication style.
The findings of study 2 only partially confirmed our initial hypotheses. When
contemplating our initial research model (see figure 1), the results revealed that there
was a significant indirect effect of debate tone on attitude toward the debaters through
the mediating pathways of perceived credibility, competence, and authority. As such,
when considering the mediators, we found that debate audience members experienced
significantly higher feelings of perceived competence, credibility, and authority, and
in turn, more positive attitudes toward the debaters when they were exposed to polite
debaters as opposed to aggressive debaters. For the model with the mediated
pathways, we did not find a significant interaction effect between gender of debaters
and tone of debaters on attitude toward the debaters. However, our analysis indicates
a significant interaction effect between gender of debaters and tone of debaters on
attitude toward the debaters when perceived credibility, competence, and authority are
not accounted for (i.e., direct interaction effect). More specifically, we found that
exposure to two polite female debaters led to significantly more positive attitudes
amongst the debate audience than two aggressive female debaters. In addition, we
found that two polite male debaters led to significantly more positive attitudes
amongst the debate audience than two aggressive male debaters.
The finding that two polite female debaters were received more favorably than
two polite male debaters is consistent with the predictions of gender role theory. As
hypothesized, debate viewers might develop more positive attitudes toward female
debaters that engage in communication behavior that is more consistent with their
59
gender role (i.e., women are generally perceived to be more polite and communal in
their communication strategies), and hence would develop more positive perceptions
and evaluations toward polite female debaters. Interestingly, the second finding,
which showed that polite male debaters were perceived more negatively than
aggressive male debaters, was counter-intuitive and opposite to our theoretical
reasoning of gender role theory. Based on the theoretical principals of gender role
theory we would have expected debate listeners to develop more positive attitudes
toward the aggressive male debaters due to implicit gender norms proscribing that
men are typically more aggressive and assertive in their communication behavior and
that displaying aggressive debating would be more conform with societal gender
expectations.
Multiple factors might account for this discrepancy in our finding. First, recent
communication research shows that public discourse has undergone a rapid transition
into more uncivil, hostile, and aggressive communication landscape (Gearhart, Moe,
& Zhang, 2020; Weeks, Kim, Hahn, Diehl, & Kwak, 2019). With the rise of social
media platforms and the ubiquitous technological presence of computer-mediated
communication, individuals might have adopted greater acuity and sensitivity towards
detecting hostile and aggressive communication behavior. This phenomenon might be
especially salient in the context of political debates. Previous research has suggested
that viewers’ exposure to incivility and aggression in political debates violates social
conversational norms, and adversely affects trust in politics and government (Chen,
2017; Mutz & Reeves, 2005). Recent events, such as the US presidential election
debates, and the exceedingly aggressive rhetoric of male candidates such as Donald
Trump, might have also contributed to a general discontentment amongst debate
watchers, and might have led to a re-orientation in terms of expectations towards

60
“appropriate” communication behavior of male spokespersons and male debaters. In
other words, debate audiences’ might rely less on traditional gender norms and have
shifted their expectations of males during debates towards polite communication
instead of aggressive communication. Secondly, it might be possible that the
difference in argument strength between polite and aggressive arguments (i.e., as
evidenced in the manipulation check) has skewed debate audiences’ perceptions and
attitudes toward the debater with polite argumentation, hence explaining why gender
effects might have been less salient in certain circumstances. Previous research points
to the notion that aggressive arguments could be perceived as less convincing and
lacking evidential support, therefore undermining its credibility and persuasiveness
(Corner & Hahn, 2009).
In the third experimental manipulation, we specifically examined how
differences in debate tone amongst the debater dyad (i.e., aggressive vs polite)
affected audiences’ perceptions on who won the debate. Based on the theoretical logic
of gender role theory, we predicted that male debaters who argued aggressively (or
females who argued politely) would be more likely to be declared winner of the
debate than male debaters who argued politely (or females who argued aggressively).
Surprisingly, the results did not reveal any significant differences in terms of
audiences’ preferences on who won the debate (i.e., no clear debate winner could be
identified in any of the experimental conditions). One reason for the lack of
statistically significant differences between the groups could be that the theoretical
framework of gender role theory might be more suitable for explaining attitudinal
formation processes (i.e., such as observation of social gender norms inferences to
“appropriate” communication behavior) and less applicable for cognitive decision-
making processes such as declaring who is perceived as the winner of the debate. As
61
such, underlying mechanisms to determine the winner a debate might rely less on
attributions to gender and debate tone and more on other factors such as prior
attitudes toward the debaters (Tsfati, 2003), social/political identification or
familiarity with the debaters (Maier & Faas, 2006), and stylistic differences of
argument presentation (Yawn & Beatty, 2000). In addition, many debates in the
modern-day era are conducted in an online and computer-mediated environment.
Social media platforms such as Youtube or Twitter allow for additional user influence
or engagement through the presence of comments or like functions, thereby
increasing the likelihood that these features could have a significant impact on debate
watchers’ perceptions on who won the debate (see Gottfried et al.,2017). Future
studies should account for the impact that social media platforms and user
engagement functions such as commenting, sharing, and liking could have on online
users’ decision-making processes and establish both experimental and theoretical
models to further examine these relationships.
Theoretical and practical contributions
This research study offered valuable insight into the adaptability and plasticity
of gender role theory and politeness theory in the complex and dynamic interaction
between perceptions of debate audiences and the debaters themselves. Gender role
theory has shown to provide a useful theoretical approach to explaining how
individuals make sense of hierarchies and gender-specific behavior, and how these
observations lead to inferences about what constitutes gender-appropriate behavior.
However, the results of this study demonstrate that the common theoretical assertions
of gender role theory of traditional gender norms/roles where males are perceived to
be more aggressive and females are supposed to be more polite/communal (see Eagly
et al., 2012) should be viewed with more caution and evaluated based on the specific
62
circumstances in which communication, or more specifically, debate conversations
occur. Research has shown that gender roles have become less rigid and more fluid
over the years, even showing a trend of a reversal of traditional gender roles (e.g.,
male housekeepers, female business leaders), which subsequently impact perceptions
and evaluations of individuals when it comes to making inferences about gender-
specific communication behavior (Harrison & Lynch, 2005). When applying gender
role theory in future studies about the impact of debates on debate audiences,
researchers should re-frame social and cultural gender norms and outline different
approaches in terms of incorporating attitudes toward gendered behavior and how this
reflects in debate audiences’ perceptions and decision-making processes (i.e.,
determining who won the debate).
While the results delivered only partial support for our theoretical
assumptions, future research should build on the discovery that politeness seems to be
valued significantly more than the gender of the debaters. Future theory building
should therefore include the role of both politeness and aggressiveness and further
explore which underlying mechanisms and circumstances might explain debate
audiences’ preference for debaters’ polite or aggressive communication. Additionally,
contextual factors such as the environment of social media and computer-mediated
communication should be heavily accounted for when exploring the impact of gender
and tone of debaters on audience members attitudes and perceptions on the winner of
the debate (see Sung & Lee, 2015; Waddell, 2018).
Important questions could arise from these online-related observations. How
do user engagement functions such as comment sections alter debate audiences’
perceptions? Is it possible that others’ aggressive or polite online comments interact
with aggressive or polite debater comments? Could the gender of others’ comments
63
affect debate viewers’ own perceptions and attitudes towards the debate and the
debaters? Do debates that are specifically targeted towards online audiences change
the relationship between the debaters and the debate audience (as opposed to face-to-
face or televised debates)? Other theoretical approaches revolving around gender
inequality (Ahmed & Madrid-Morales, 2021), bias assimilation (Wang, 2021) and
heuristic-systematic models (Kim, King, & Kim, 2018) should be analyzed and
merged with the theoretical frameworks of gender role theory and politeness theory to
further expand on empirically understanding the subtle and nuanced challenges and
interactions between debate participants and debate audiences, especially given the
increasing complexity of online media and social media platforms.
Future Research/Limitations
An important aspect for future research to consider is the context in which this
research study was conducted. Most of the experimental studies were conducted in
audio setting in which the participants were asked to listen to a debate between two
debaters. Most real-life debates take place in a video format such that the debate
audience can visually assess many of the elements and characteristics that were the
focus of this investigation (i.e., perceived competence, credibility, perceived winner
of the debate). As such, it becomes even more relevant to extend future empirical
investigations to scenarios where participants will be exposed to video debates rather
than audio debates. The audio setting of this research study could have also
contributed to the mixed findings in terms of the impact of gender role theory on
audience members’ attitudes and evaluation processes. It could be possible that some
of the predictions of this study would have been more accurate in a setting where
participants would have been visually exposed to male and female debaters. Some of
the questions for future research that arise of this observation: does the additional
64
benefit of seeing the gender of the debaters differentially affect the impact on
audience members’ attitudes and perceptions on who won the debate? In a visual
setting, would the interaction effect between gender and tone of the debaters lead to
findings that are more in line with the initial theoretical predictions of gender role
theory (i.e., for instance aggressive male debaters are more likely to be viewed
positively and perceived as the winner of a debate than polite male debaters)?
The findings of this research study were somewhat counter indicative to the
principles of gender role theory such that in most situations polite debaters generated
more positive attitudes toward the debaters than aggressive debaters regardless of the
gender of the debaters. Future research should explore how variables that are unique
to the video debate context such as perceived attractiveness or non-verbal
communication alter the dynamics and interrelations that were part of this empirical
study.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S., & Madrid-Morales, D. (2021). Is it still a man’s world? Social media
news use and gender inequality in online political engagement. Information,
Communication & Society, 24(3), 381-399.
Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation?: A study of

participation and representation in political debates on the Internet.
Information, Community & Society, 9(1), 62-82.
Al-Rawi, A. (2019). Viral news on social media. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 63-79.
Anspach, N. M. (2017). The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends
influence the news we read. Political Communication, 34(4), 590-606.
Arbatli, E., & Rosenberg, D. (2021). United we stand, divided we rule: how political
polarization erodes democracy. Democratization, 28(2), 285-307.
Baek, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2012). Online versus face-to-
face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects?. New edia &
Society, 14(3), 363-383.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and

religion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Barr, C. W. (1991). The importance and potential of Leaders Debates. Media and
Voters in Canadian Election Campaigns, 18, 157-211.
Behm-Morawitz, E., & Mastro, D. (2009). The effects of the sexualization of female
video game characters on gender stereotyping and female self-concept. Sex
Roles, 61(11), 808-823.
Bentivegna, S., & Marchetti, R. (2015). Live tweeting a political debate: The case of
the ‘Italia bene comune’. European Journal of Communication, 30(6), 631-
647.
Benkler, Y., Roberts, H., Faris, R., Solow-Niederman, A., & Etling, B. (2015). Social
mobilization and the networked public sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA
debate. Political Communication, 32(4), 594-624.
Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (2001). The new media and our political
communication discontents: Democratizing cyberspace. Information,
Bode, L. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social
media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24-48.
Braun, J. A. (2015). This Program Is Brought to You By... Yale University Press.
65
66
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language

usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
Burgoon, M., Burgoon, J. K., Riess, M., Butler, J., Montgomery, C. L., Stinnett, W.
D., Miller, M., Long, M., Vaughn, D., & Caine, B. (1976). Propensity of
persuasive attack and intensity of pretreatment messages as predictors of
resistance persuasion. Journal of Psychology, 92, 123-129.
Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. E. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion:
The effects of violations of expectations by males and females. Human
Communication Research, 10(2), 283-294.
Butler, F. C. (1978). The concept of competence: AN operational definition.

Educational Technology, 18(1), 7-18.
Caldarelli, G., De Nicola, R., Petrocchi, M., Pratelli, M., & Saracco, F. (2021). Flow
of online misinformation during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in
Italy. EPJ Data Science, 10(1), 34.
Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and
influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1030-1041.
Cavazza, N. (2017). The tone dilemma: Comparing the effects of flattery and verbal
aggression in a political speech. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 36(5), 585-598.
Check, J. V., Malamuth, N. M., Elias, B., & Barton, S. (1985). On hostile
ground. Psychology Today, 19(4), 56-61.
Chen, G. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Springer.
Chu, H., Yuan, S., & Liu, S. (2021). Call them COVIDiots: Exploring the effects of
aggressive communication style and psychological distance in the
communication of COVID-19. Public Understanding of Science, 30(3), 240-
257.
Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M.
(2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 118(9).
Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2009). Evaluating science arguments: evidence, uncertainty,
and argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3),
199.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication:

Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162.
Delic, H., & Becirovic, S. (2016). Socratic method as an approach to teaching.

European Researcher. Series A, (10), 511-517.
67
Detenber, B. H., Cenite, M., Zhou, S., Malik, S., & Neo, R. L. (2014). Rights versus
morality: Online debate about decriminalization of gay sex in Singapore.
Journal of Homosexuality, 61(9), 1313-1333.
Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: comparing social role theory
and evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1380-1383.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation
of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-22.
Eagly, A. H., & Revelle, W. (2022). Understanding the magnitude of psychological

differences between women and men requires seeing the forest and the
trees. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1339-1358.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Social role theory. Handbook of Theories in Social
Psychology, 2, 458-476.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex
differences and similarities: A current appraisal. The Developmental Social
Psychology of Gender, 12, 174.
Easterby‐Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning:

debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783-
796.
Eckler, P., & Bolls, P. (2011). Spreading the virus: Emotional tone of viral advertising
and its effect on forwarding intentions and attitudes. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 11(2), 1-11.
Eelen, G. (2014). A Critique of Politeness Theory: Volume 1(Vol. 1). Routledge.
Erzikova, E., & Simpson, E. (2018). When the gated misbehave: Online reader
comments on Anthony Weiner’s sexting scandal. Journalism Practice, 12(9),
1148-1164.
Esau, K., Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2017). Design matters! An empirical analysis of
online deliberation on different news platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321-
342.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-236.
Fuchs, C. (2017). From digital positivism and administrative big data analytics
towards critical digital and social media research!. European Journal of
Communication, 32(1), 37-49.
68
Gearhart, S., Moe, A., & Zhang, B. (2020). Hostile media bias on social media:
Testing the effect of user comments on perceptions of news bias and
credibility. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 140-148.
Gainous, J., & Wagner, K. M. (2013). Tweeting to power: The social media
revolution in American politics. Oxford University Press.
García-Cueto, E., Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J., Bringas-Molleda, C., López-Cepero, J.,

Paíno- Quesada, S., & Rodríguez-Franco, L. (2015). Development of the
gender role attitudes scale (GRAS) amongst young Spanish people.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(1), 61-68.
Garcia‐Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of
argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science
Education, 97(4), 497-523.
García-Perdomo, V. (2021). Re-digitizing television news: The relationship between

TV, online media and audiences. Digital Journalism, 9(2), 136-154.
Gerbert, B., Berg-Smith, S., Mancuso, M., Caspers, N., McPhee, S., Null, D., &
Wofsy, J. (2003). Using innovative video doctor technology in primary care to
deliver brief smoking and alcohol intervention. Health Promotion
Practice, 4(3), 249-261.
Gilbert, L. A., Lee, R. N., & Chiddix, S. (1981). Influence of presenter’s gender on
students’ evaluations of presenters discussing sex fairness in counseling: An
analogue study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(3), 258.
Goldsmith, D. J., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2000). The impact of politeness and

relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human
Communication Research, 26(2), 234-263.
Goovaerts, I., & Marien, S. (2020). Uncivil communication and simplistic

argumentation: Decreasing political trust, increasing persuasive
power?. Political Communication, 37(6), 768-788.
Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Holbert, R. L., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H.
(2017). The changing nature of political debate consumption: Social media,
multitasking, and knowledge acquisition. Political Communication, 34(2),
172-199.
Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2014). Discursive equality and everyday talk online: The
impact of “superparticipants”. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Online persuasion: An examination of

gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group
dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 38-51.
69
Haim, M., Graefe, A., & Brosius, H. B. (2018). Burst of the filter bubble? Effects of
personalization on the diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism, 6(3),
330-343.
Hampton, K. N., Shin, I., & Lu, W. (2017). Social media and political discussion:
when online presence silences offline conversation. Information,
Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2017). What is news? News values revisited (again).
Journalism Studies, 18(12), 1470-1488.
Harrison, L. A., & Lynch, A. B. (2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender
role orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52, 227-236.
Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S. (2002). Politeness strategies in the 1992 vice presidential
and presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(4), 234-250.
Hinck, S. S., Hinck, R. S., Dailey, W. O., & Hinck, E. A. (2013). Thou shalt not speak
ill of any fellow Republicans? Politeness theory in the 2012 Republican
primary debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 259-274.
Hopmann, D. N., Vliegenthart, R., & Maier, J. (2018). The effects of tone, focus, and
incivility in election debates. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and
Parties, 28(3), 283-306.
Hosman, L. A., Huebner, T. M., & Siltanen, S. A. (2002). The impact of power-of-
speech style, argument strength, and need for cognition on impression
formation, cognitive responses, and persuasion. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 21(4), 361-379.
Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Huh, C. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil
online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621-633.
Hyde, J. S., & Durik, A. M. (2005). Gender, competence, and motivation. Handbook
of Competence and Motivation, 375-391.
Iandoli, L., Primario, S., & Zollo, G. (2021). The impact of group polarization on the
quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120924.
Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2003, April). Gender interactions in online

debates: Look who's arguing with whom. In The Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 107(43), 18243-18250.
70
Jorgensen, C., Kock, C., & Rorbech, L. (1998). Rhetoric that shifts votes: An
exploratory study of persuasion in issue-oriented public debates. Political
Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Miller, D. L. (2004). Gender, perceived competence,
and power displays: Examining verbal interruptions in a group context. Small
Group Research, 35(4), 407-439.
Kilgo, D. K., Harlow, S., García-Perdomo, V., & Salaverría, R. (2018). A new
sensation? An international exploration of sensationalism and social media
recommendations in online news publications. Journalism, 19(11), 1497-1516.
Kim, K., King, K. W., & Kim, J. (2018). Processing contradictory brand information
from advertising and social media: An application of the multiple-motive
heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(8),
801-822.
Kolb, J. A. (1999). The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self‐
confidence on leader emergence: Implications for leadership development.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4), 305-320.
König, L., & Jucks, R. (2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive
language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public
Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401-416.
Kroon, M. (2017). Online video advertising: how message tone and length persuade
the audience: A research on the influence of message tone and the length of
video advertisements on advertisement attitude, product attitude, forwarding
intention and purchasing intention, with product type as a proposed
moderator [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Twente.
Koudenburg, N., & Kashima, Y. (2021). A polarized discourse: effects of opinion

differentiation and structural differentiation on communication. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(7), 1068-1086.
Lanoue, D. J., & Schroff, P. R. (1989). The effects of primary season debates on
public opinion. Political Behavior, 11, 289-306.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to

negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(2), 221-234.
Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2004). An activity-theoretical approach to research of ICT

integration in Singapore schools: Orienting activities and learner autonomy.
Computers & Education, 43(3), 215-236.
Lin, T. Z., & Tian, X. (2019). Audience design and context discrepancy: How online
debates lead to opinion polarization. Symbolic Interaction, 42(1), 70-97.
71
Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., Xenos, M. A., Steel, H., & Burgum, S. (2015). Campus
politics, student societies and social media. The Sociological Review, 63(4),
820-839.
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth

acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68(4), 704.
Lokot, T. (2018). # IAmNotAfraidToSayIt: Stories of sexual violence as everyday

political speech on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 21(6),
802-817.
Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and letters of
recommendation for academia: agentic and communal differences. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1591.
Maier, J., & Faas, T. (2006). Debates, media and social networks: How interpersonal
and mass communication affected the evaluation of the televised debates in
the 2002 German election. Series on International Media Research, 1, 43-62.
Mailath, G. J., Morris, S., & Postlewaite, A. (2017). Laws and authority. Research in
Economics, 71(1), 32-42.
Markov, Č., & Min, Y. (2021). Understanding the Public’s Animosity Toward News
Media: Cynicism and Distrust as Related but Distinct Negative Media
Perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
10776990211061764.
Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online
discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23.
McCroskey, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for

measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication
instructors. Communication Education, 23(1), 26-33.
Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007).
Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of
controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of
freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219-240.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Mena, P., Jiang, S., & Wilson, C. (2021). From dark
to light: The many shades of sharing misinformation online. Media and
Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E.
(2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996
U.S. presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(1), 15-26.
72
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised
incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1-15.
Nau, C., & Stewart, C. O. (2014). Effects of verbal aggression and party identification
bias on perceptions of political speakers. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 33(5), 526-536.
Nelson, L. (1980). The socratic method. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for
Children, 2(2), 34-38.
Niah, S. (2021). Students’ voices towards online debate through WhatsApp as

alternative media to enhance critical thinking skills during Covid-19
pandemic. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(5).
Nicholson, M. S., & Leask, J. (2012). Lessons from an online debate about measles–
mumps–rubella (MMR) immunization. Vaccine, 30(25), 3806-3812.
Nielsen (2016, September). First presidential debate of 2016 of 2016 draws 84 million
viewers. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2016/first-presidential-debate-of-
2016-draws-84-million-viewers/.
Nielsen (2020, September). Media advisory: 2020 election coverage draws 56.9
million viewers during prime. https://www.nielsen.com/news-
center/2020/media-advisory-2020-election-draws-56-9-million-viewers-
during-prime/.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity

endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 19(3), 39-52.
Okdie, B. M., Guadagno, R. E., Petrova, P. K., & Shreves, W. B. (2013). Social
influence online: A tale of gender differences in the effectiveness of authority
cues. International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and
Technologies (IJICST), 3(1), 20-31.
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic

potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2),
259-283.
Partington, A., & Taylor, C. (2017). The language of persuasion in politics: An

introduction. Routledge.
Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance:
Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth
acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 27-68.
Peer, L., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2011). YouTube and the challenge to journalism: new
standards for news videos online. Journalism Studies, 12(1), 45-63.
73
Peirce, K. (2001). What if the energizer bunny were female? Importance of gender in
perceptions of advertising spokes-character effectiveness. Sex Roles, 45(11),
845-858.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pollock, P. H., Hamann, K., & Wilson, B. M. (2005). Teaching and learning online:
Assessing the effect of gender context on active learning. Journal of Political
Science Education, 1(1), 1-15.
Pornpitakpan, C., & Francis, J. N. (2000). The effect of cultural differences, source
expertise, and argument strength on persuasion: An experiment with
Canadians and Thais. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13(1),
77-101.
Powers, T. A., & Zuroff, D. C. (1988). Interpersonal consequences of overt self-

criticism: A comparison with neutral and self-enhancing presentations of
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1054.
Rains, S. A., Kenski, K., Coe, K., & Harwood, J. (2017). Incivility and political
identity on the Internet: Intergroup factors as predictors of incivility in
discussions of news online. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Raviv, A., Bar‐Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Abin, R. (1993). Measuring epistemic authority:
Studies of politicians and professors. European Journal of Personality, 7(2),
119-138.
Reynolds, E. (2017). What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had swapped
genders? NYU. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news
publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html.
Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Ed.),

Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 933–1016). New York:
Wiley.
Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011).
Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online
newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463-487.
Santana, A. D., & Dozier, D. M. (2019). Mobile devices offer little in-depth news:
sensational, breaking and entertainment news dominate mobile news
sites. Journalism Practice, 13(9), 1106-1127.
Sebastianelli, R., Tamimi, N., & Rajan, M. (2008). Perceived quality of online
shopping: Does gender make a difference?. Journal of Internet
Commerce, 7(4), 445-469.
74
Seeskin, K. (1987). Dialogue and discovery: A study in Socratic method. SUNY

Press.
Shaw, A. (2015). Gaming at the edge: Sexuality and gender at the margins of gamer
culture. U of Minnesota Press.
Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere,
and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28-41.
Spiers, J. A. (1998). The use of face work and politeness theory. Qualitative Health
Research, 8(1), 25-47.
Strach, P., Zuber, K., Fowler, E. F., Ridout, T. N., & Searles, K. (2015). In a different
voice? Explaining the use of men and women as voice-over announcers in
political advertising. Political Communication, 32(2), 183-205.
Sung, K. H., & Lee, M. J. (2015). Do online comments influence the public's attitudes
toward an organization? Effects of online comments based on individuals’
prior attitudes. The Journal of Psychology, 149(4), 325-338.
Sweeting, H., Maycock, M. W., Walker, L., & Hunt, K. (2017). Public challenge and
endorsement of sex category ambiguity in online debate:‘The sooner people
stop thinking that gender is a matter of choice the better’. Sociology of Health
& Illness, 39(3), 380-396.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political
beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.
Tikves, S., Gokalp, S., Temkit, M., Banerjee, S., Ye, J., & Davulcu, H. (2012,
August). Perspective analysis for online debates. In 2012 IEEE/ACM
International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and
Mining (pp. 898-905). IEEE.
Thomson, R. (2006). The effect of topic of discussion on gendered language in

computer-mediated-communication discussion. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 25(2), 167-178.
Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The use of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK.
Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values: Their scope
and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 39-52.
Travaglia, L. K., Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Benevolent and hostile
sexism and preferences for romantic partners. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47(6), 599-604.
Treen, K. M. D. I., Williams, H. T., & O'Neill, S. J. (2020). Online misinformation

about climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 11(5), e665.
75
Trilling, D. (2015). Two different debates? Investigating the relationship between a

political debate on TV and simultaneous comments on Twitter. Social Science
Computer Review, 33(3), 259-276.
Tsfati, Y. (2003). Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International

Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 65-82.
Ulbrich, F., Christensen, T., & Stankus, L. (2011). Gender-specific on-line shopping
preferences. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(2), 181-199.
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2012). Digital democracy: Vision and reality. In I. Snellen, M.

Thans, & W. van de Donk (Eds.), Public administration in the information
age: Revisited (pp. 49-62). IOS Press.
Van’t Riet, J., Schaap, G., & Kleemans, M. (2018). Fret not thyself: The persuasive
effect of anger expression and the role of appropriateness.
Motivation and Emotion, 42(1), 103-117.
Van Zoonen, L., Vis, F., & Mihelj, S. (2010). Performing citizenship on YouTube:
Activism, satire and online debate around the anti-Islam video Fitna. Critical
Discourse Studies, 7(4), 249-262.
Veletsianos, G., Houlden, S., Hodson, J., & Gosse, C. (2018). Women scholars’
experiences with online harassment and abuse: Self-protection, resistance,
acceptance, and self-blame. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4689-4708.
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn
and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to
their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The
Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Vonnahme, B. M. (2014). Surviving scandal: An exploration of the immediate and

lasting effects of scandal on candidate evaluation. Social Science
Quarterly, 95(5), 1308-1321.
Waddell, T. F. (2018). What does the crowd think? How online comments and
popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media &
Society, 20(8), 3068-3083.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K., Bennett, L., & Taylor, G. (2017). The normalization of

surveillance and the invisibility of digital citizenship: Media debates after the
Snowden revelations. International Journal of Communication, 11, 740-762.
Wang, Y. (2021). Debunking misinformation about genetically modified food safety

on social media: Can heuristic cues mitigate biased assimilation? Science
76
Weeks, B. E., Kim, D. H., Hahn, L. B., Diehl, T. H., & Kwak, N. (2019). Hostile
media perceptions in the age of social media: Following politicians, emotions,
and perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 63(3), 374-392.
Whipple, T. W., & McManamon, M. K. (2002). Implications of using male and

female voices in commercials: An exploratory study. Journal of Advertising,
31(2), 79-91.
Williams, D., Consalvo, M., Caplan, S., & Yee, N. (2009). Looking for gender:
Gender roles and behaviors among online gamers. Journal of
Witschge, T. (2004). Online deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for deliberative

democracy. In Democracy online (pp. 129-142). Routledge.
Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online
discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849-869.
Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do
online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?. Journal
of Communication, 59(1), 40-56.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G.

Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629–667).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Yawn, M., & Beatty, B. (2000). Debate-induced opinion change: What matters?
American Politics Quarterly, 28(2), 270-285.
Yuan, S., Besley, J. C., & Ma, W. (2019). Be mean or be nice? Understanding the
effects of aggressive and polite communication styles in child vaccination
debate. Health Communication, 34(10), 1212-1221.
Yuan, S., & Lu, H. (2020). “It’s global warming, stupid”: Aggressive communication
styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate
change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1003-1025.
APPENDIX I – DEBATE SCRIPT
Script Debate Topic (Construction of shopping mall in Des Moines, Iowa)
Setup: This is a debate between a proponent and an opponent of the construction of a

new mall in city center of DesMoines in Iowa. Please read (or listen) to the debate
carefully and answer the questions related to the debate excerpts.
Debater 1 -> D1
Debater 2 -> D2
Exchange 1:
D1 Argument: Positive impact on local economy
D1: I firmly believe that constructing a new mall in the city center of DesMoines will
positively benefit the economy and strengthen the local consumer confidence. The
mall will open a lot of opportunities for local vendors to promote and sell their
products. Not to mention the opening of the mall will increase consumers’ purchase
intentions and stimulate the growth of the local and state economy. (Polite)
D2: I think it is ridiculous that some people are still blocking the idea of constructing
a new shopping mall in the city center of DesMoines. Everybody knows that more
consumer activity is synonymous with the growth of the economy and increases
exposure to national attention. People should have enough common sense to realize
this fact and stop their childish notions about evil consumerism. (Aggressive)
Response Argument: Negative impact on local economy
D2: I understand your point but I think that constructing a new mall in the city center
will negatively affect the local economy. Specifically, I believe that the local vendors
would see a negative impact on their sales to the point that they would probably have
to close their businesses. So while the opening of a mall might increase consumer
purchase intention in the short term it could have very negative economic
consequences for local small businesses. (Polite)
D2: How could you possibly believe that opening a new mall in the city centre would
benefit the local economy in any way. Local vendors would be absolutely crushed if
our greedy government decided to go through with this plan. While the government in
charge might be able to line their pockets, the local business people would have to
take a huge financial hit and potentially end up being unemployed. (Aggressive)
77
78
Exchange 2:
D1 Argument: Shopping mall increases convenience for shoppers
D1: While I share your concerns for the negative impact on small businesses, I
believe that the construction of a new shopping mall would increase convenience for
everybody. The convenient location and accessibility of parking spaces would attract
both young and old consumers and would lead to the creation of a more consumer
friendly environment and a variety of services, which unfortunately small business
cannot offer.(Polite)
D2: You have absolutely no clue. Nobody is forcing people to go to shopping malls to
satisfy their consumer needs. Shopping malls simply offer better services and more
convenience that small local businesses. Shoppers just love the convenient location
and free accessibility of parking. In the end this is just economy 101. If small
businesses can’t offer better services they can’t be upset if they end up losing out to
shopping malls. (Aggressive)
Response Argument: Traffic congestion and bad for environment
D2: I agree with some of your previous assessment. However, I do think that
shopping malls worsen traffic rather than improve it. I’m pretty confident that
constructing the mall in the city center would lead to more traffic congestion and poor
air quality from vehicle emissions. Recent environmental reports have supported this
notion and documented that areas around shopping malls tend to have higer CO2
levels. (Polite)
D2: If only you would look past mainstream brainwashing you might be able to see
how shopping malls actually make traffic worse and destroy the environment. Having
a mall in the city center would mean thousands of people looking for parking spots
while simultaneously polluting our air with CO2 and vehicle emissions. But of course
it would be too much for you to comprehend this. (Aggressive)
Exchange 3:
D1 Argument: Shopping mall elevates community spirit
D1: I think you raise a good point. However, I believe that there are more benefits
than negatives. For instance, a mall in the city center would increase the sense of
belonging and community spirit of the local residents. The mall would be a clean and
safe environment in which consumers could choose and variety from store and
potentially mingle in common areas such as lounges and food courts. (Polite)
79
D1: What are you talking about? A shopping mall would not be destructive to the
environment. If anything a new mall would create a clean and safe environment in
which shoppers will experience a community spirit or sense of belonging. But you
would rather hold on to your romanticized notion of “evil” shopping malls that
destroy the environment than acknowledging the reality.
(Aggressive)
Response Argument: Shopping malls lead to consumerism and materialism
D2: I think you are overestimating how much positive impact the shopping mall
would have on consumers’ psyche. The easy accessibility of mall stores would be
much more likely to feed into consumers’ materialistic urges, promote unhappiness,
and motivate them to make purchases that they either don’t need or can’t afford.
Smaller business would be much more likely to promote consumer happiness as they
give more individualized attention to each single customer. (Polite)
D2: Your arguments just go to show how detached you are from real life. Shopping
malls make customers not happier but more miserable. The easy accessibility and
promotion of mall stores will just conjure negative materialistic feelings amongst the
consumers who end up being tricked into being things they don’t want or don’t need.
It s really just a Ponzi scheme by big corporations to get into people’s pockets.
(Aggressive)
Exchange 4:
D1 Argument: Mall shopping offers more inexpensive choices
D1: I can relate to your argument. But still I think shopping malls offer more
convenient and more inexpensive shopping opportunities when compared to more
specialized local businesses. People that are on a budget are more likely to find
something suitable in a shopping mall where all the stores are conveniently placed
next to each other and consumer goods are offered at much more agreeable price
ranges. (Polite)
D2: I can’t believe that you are too dense to understand this. Shopping malls have
more benefits in terms of offering competitive and affordable prices. Why would a
customer go to a highly specialized local business if they can easily find affordable
products in close proximity each other. I mean this is really a no-brainer. Consumers
like affordable and inexpensive products, therefore they will always be attracted to
shopping malls.
(Aggressive)
Response Argument: Mall shopping offers you generic and unimaginative products
80
D1: Shopping malls might provide inexpensive shopping opportunities, but the
products sold in mall stores often lack authenticity and tend to be more generic in
nature. Not to mention a lot of the products sold in big retailers have been made in
third world countries in ethically compromised work environments. When you
combine all these factors, I think they illustrate the negative consequences of big
shopping malls. (Polite)
D2: Such nonsense. Shopping malls are mostly big companies exploiting their
workers and offering products at cheap prices, therefore undermining all their
competition that actually has to work hard for their money. Not to mention most of
the products sold in shopping malls are boring and redundant. But I m not surprised
that are that many mindless people who just want their need for consumerism met at
all times. (Aggressive)
APPENDIX II – Questionnaire
Demographic Measures
1. What is your gender? Male____ Female_____
2. What is your age? ______
3. What is your race?

White___
American Indian or Alaska Native___
Black or African American___
Asian___
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander___
Other___
4. What is your ethnicity?

Hispanic or Latino___
Not Hispanic or Latino___
5. What is your marital status?

Single___ Married___ Widowed/Divorced/Separated___ Other___
Pre-test Measures
1. Please rate your perceived aggressiveness of this argument:

“1” not aggressive at all” -> “7” very aggressive
2. Please rate your perceived politeness of this argument:

“1” not polite at all -> “7” very polite
3. Involvement with shopping and shopping malls

(Adapted from Cho & Booster, 2005)
“1” strongly agree – “7” strongly disagree
Whether malls are constructed or not has little impact on my life.

All in all, the effect of the construction of malls on my life is small.
It is easy for me to think of ways the construction of malls affects my life.
4. Measurement for argument strength: (adapted from Corner & Hahn, 2009_
The debater ‘s arguments are:
0 (Very unconvincing) to 10 (Very convincing)
81
82
Main Study Measures
(1) Gender role attitude scale
7-point Likert scale (“1” totally agree– “5” totally disagree)
Adapted from Garcia-Cueta et al., 2015
Please rate your agreement with the following items…
1. People can be aggressive and understanding, regardless of their sex

2. People should be treated equally, regardless of their sex
3. Children should be given freedom depending on their age and how mature they are,
not depending on their sex
4. We should stop thinking about whether people are men or women and focus on
other characteristics
5. A woman must not contradict her partner
6. I think it is worse to see a man cry than a woman
7. Girls should be more clean and tidy than boys
8. Men should occupy posts of responsibility
9. I think it is right that in my circles of friends, my future domestic activity is
considered more important than my professional activity
10. A father’s main responsibility is to help his children financially
11. Some jobs are not appropriate for women
12. Only some kinds of job are equally appropriate for men and women
13. In many important jobs it is better to contract men than women
(2) Attitude toward debater A/debater B arguments
7-point semantic differential scale, adapted from Burgeon et al., 1976
In your view, debater A’s arguments were…
Foolish _ _ _ _ _ _ _Wise
Bad _ _ _ _ _ _ _Good
Unfavorable_ _ _ _ _ _ _Favorable
Negative_ _ _ _ _ _ _Positive
Wrong_ _ _ _ _ _ _Right
Unacceptable_ _ _ _ _ _ _Acceptable
In your view, debater B’s arguments were…
Foolish _ _ _ _ _ _ _Wise
Bad _ _ _ _ _ _ _Good
83
Unfavorable_ _ _ _ _ _ _Favorable
Negative_ _ _ _ _ _ _Positive
Wrong_ _ _ _ _ _ _Right
Unacceptable_ _ _ _ _ _ _Acceptable
(3) Attitude toward debate topic
7-point Likert scale (“1” very negative – “7” very positive
After viewing the topic, rate your feelings towards the debate topic?
(4) Perceived competence of debater A/debater B
5-point semantic differential scale, adapted from Ohanian, 1990
Based on your observation of the debate, how would you rate debater A in terms of
the following adjectives…
Unattractive_ _ _ _ _ _ _Attractive
Nonclassy _ _ _ _ _ _ _Classy
Insincere_ _ _ _ _ _ _Sincere
Unreliable_ _ _ _ _ _ _Reliable
Untrustworthy_ _ _ _ _ _ _Trustworthy
Inexpert_ _ _ _ _ _ _Expert
Inexperienced_ _ _ _ _ _ _Experienced
Unskilled_ _ _ _ _ _ _Skilled
Based on your observation of the debate, how would you rate debater B in terms of
Unattractive_ _ _ _ _ _ _Attractive
Nonclassy _ _ _ _ _ _ _Classy
Insincere_ _ _ _ _ _ _Sincere
Unreliable_ _ _ _ _ _ _Reliable
Untrustworthy_ _ _ _ _ _ _Trustworthy
Inexpert_ _ _ _ _ _ _Expert
Inexperienced_ _ _ _ _ _ _Experienced
Unskilled_ _ _ _ _ _ _Skilled
84
(5) Perceived competence of debater A/debater B
5-point semantic differential scale, adapted from McCroskey, Holdridge, &Toomb,

1974 and McCroskey & Jensen, 1973)
Based on your observation of the debate, how would you rate debater A in terms of
Unintelligent_ _ _ _ _ _ _Intelligent
Incompetent_ _ _ _ _ _ _Competent
Unqualified_ _ _ _ _ _ _Qualified
Based on your observation of the debate, how would you rate debater B in terms of
Unintelligent_ _ _ _ _ _ _Intelligent
Incompetent_ _ _ _ _ _ _Competent
Unqualified_ _ _ _ _ _ _Qualified
(6) Perceived authority of the debater
6-point Likert scale (“1” definitely agree – “6” definitely agree), adapted from Raviv
et al., 1993)
Based on your assessment of the debate, please rate debater A on the following
statements
1. I think I have reasons to contradict his/her arguments.

2. I do not trust his/her statements
3. In my opinion, he/she is careful to be precise with facts
4. His/her opinions influence my behavior
5. I trust him/her with all my heart
6. His/her arguments do not seem to be well founded
7. I am ready to change my opinions in accordance with his/hers
8. I accept his/her statement is correct
9. I do not do what he/she says
10. I follow him/her blindly
11. His/her statements may cause me to reconsider my opinions
12. In my opinion, he/she is a great expert.
13. His/her influence on me is very slight.
14. His/her opinions influence my attitudes.
15. I find his/her arguments to be correct.
16. I tend to disagree with his/her views.
85
17. In my opinion, he/she has much knowledge
Note: Items 1, 2, 6, 9, 13, and 16 are formulated in an opposite direction and their
scores need to be reversed.
Based on your assessment of the debate, please rate debater B on the following
statements
1. I think I have reasons to contradict his/her arguments.

2. I do not trust his/her statements
3. In my opinion, he/she is careful to be precise with facts
4. His/her opinions influence my behavior
5. I trust him/her with all my heart
6. His/her arguments do not seem to be well founded
7. I am ready to change my opinions in accordance with his/hers
8. I accept his/her statement is correct
9. I do not do what he/she says
10. I follow him/her blindly
11. His/her statements may cause me to reconsider my opinions
12. In my opinion, he/she is a great expert.
13. His/her influence on me is very slight.
14. His/her opinions influence my attitudes.
15. I find his/her arguments to be correct.
16. I tend to disagree with his/her views.
17. In my opinion, he/she has much knowledge
(7) Perceived Winner of the debate
Continuous rating scale, adapted from Munro et al., 2012
In your opinion how won the debate?
Definitely Debater A (-4)

(-3)
(-2)
(-1)
Neither debater A nor debater B (0)
(+1)
(+2)
(+3)
Definitely Debater B (+4)
FIGURES
Online debate characteristics
Gender of Debater
Male Female Male Female
Tone of Debate
Aggressive Polite Polite Aggressive
Online viewer perception
Perceived congruity with Perceived incongruity between

agentic agentic
(male)/communal(female) (male)/communal(female)
gender norms gender norms
Positive perception of debater Negative perception of debater

à high perceived authority, à low perceived authority,
credibility, and competence credibility, and competence
GENDER ROLE THEORY/ROLE CONGRUITY
Figure 1. Online viewers’ perception based on Gender role theory/role congruity
86
87
Perceived Authority
Perceived Competence
Debate tone Perceived Credibility
Gender of
Attitude toward the debaters
debater
Figure 2. Conceptual model for H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d

88
Perceived Authority
Sex of Perceived Competence
aggressive Perceived Credibility
debater
Sex of polite
debater Perceived winner of debate
Figure 3. Conceptual model for hypothesis H3a, H3b, and H3c

89
Perceived Authority
Debate tone
Perceived Credibility
Gender of 1.Perceived winner of

debater debate
2.Attitude toward
debaters
Gender of
aggressive
debater
Gender of polite Perceived Competence
debater
Perceived Authority
Figure 4. Overall model framework

90
Perceived Authority
Debate tone
Gender of
Attitude toward debaters
debater
Note: See Tables 1, 2, and 3 for coefficients and p-values
Figure 5. Model results (Study 2)

91
Gender of Perceived Authority

aggressive
debater
Gender of polite Perceived

debater Winner of debate
Note: See Tables 4, 5, and 6 for coefficients and p-values
Figure 6. Model results (Study 3)

TABLES
Table 1. Mediators as outcome variable (Study 2)
Outcome variable: Perceived credibility (N = 320)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.3885 .15 12.22 4.00 275.00 .00**
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.81 .30 9.52 .00** 2.23 3.39
Tone of debaters .49 .16 3.14 .002** .18 .80
Gender of debaters .04 .11 .32 .75 -.19 .26
2-way interaction effect -.04 .07 -.52 .60 -.18 .10
**
p < .001; * p < .05
Outcome variable: Perceived competence (N = 320)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.38 .15 11.84 4.00 275.00 .00**
Model
constant 2.71 .36 7.44 .00** 2.00 3.43
Tone of debaters .51 .19 2.64 .009** .13 .89
**
p < .001; * p < .05
92
93
Outcome variable: Perceived authority (N = 320)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.35 .12 9.31 4.00 275.00 .00**
Model
constant 3.15 .27 11.87 .00** 2.63 3.67
Tone of debaters .44 .14 3.16 .002** .17 .72
2-way interaction effect -.07 .06 -1.05 .30 -.19 .06
**
p < .001; * p < .05
94
Table 2. Dependent variable as outcome variable (Study 2)
Outcome variable: Attitude toward debaters (N = 132)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.71 .50 39.52 7.00 272.00 .00**
Model
Constant .48 .41 1.6 .25 -.33 1.30
Credibility .40 .11 3.40 .0008** .17 .63
Competence .29 .09 3.22 .001** .11 .47
Authority .33 .10 3.41 .0008** .14 .53
**
p < .001; * p < .05
95
Table 3. Direct effects (Study 2)
Direct effect of X on Y
Debater Gender Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

1 .30 .11 2.69 .008 .08 .52
2 .19 .08 2.56. .012 .04 .34
3 .08 .11 .75 .46 -.13 .30
Note: 1=both male debaters; 2=both female debaters; 3=male and female debaters
96
Table 4. Mediators as outcome variable (Study 3)
Outcome variable: Perceived credibility (N = 237)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.12 .01 .78 4.00 232.00 .54
Model
constant 3.10 .27 11.64 .00** 2.57 3.62
Gender .15 .16 .89 .37 -.18 .47
Gender of polite debaters 19 .16 1.13 .26 -.14 .51
2-way interaction effect -.13 .04 .46 .64 -.06 .09
**
p < .001; * p < .05
Outcome variable: Perceived competence (N = 237)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.09 .009 .50 4.00 232.00 .73
Model
constant 3.33 .41 8.10 .00** 2.52 4.13
Gender of aggr. debaters .24 .25 .95 .34 -.26 .74
Gender of polite debaters .18 .25 .69 .49 -.32 .68
2-way interaction effect -.16 .16 -1.01 .32 -.09 .14
**
p < .001; * p < .05
97
Outcome variable: Perceived authority (N = 320)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.14 .02 1.00 4.00 232.00 .41
Model
constant 3.14 .28 11.17 .00** 2.59 3.70
Gender of aggr. debaters .01 .17 .06 .95 -.33 .35
Gender of polite debaters .009 .17 .05 .96 -.33 .35
**
p < .001; * p < .05
98
Table 5. Dependent variable as outcome variable (Study 3)
Outcome variable: Perceived winner of debate (N = 237)
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.20 .04 1.20 7.00 206.00 .00**
Model
Constant 1.32 2.28 .58 .56 -3.18 5.82
Credibility -.46 .57 -.81 .42 -1.59 .67
Competence -.08 .36 -.23 .82 -.80 .64
Authority .40 .49 .81 .42 -.57 1.36
**
p < .001; * p < .05
99
Table 6. Direct and indirect effects (Study 3)
Conditional direct effect of X on Y
Gender polite Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

1 -.30 .46 -.66 .51 -1.21 .61
2 -.20 .47 -.43 .67 -1.11 .72
Note: 1=male;2=female
Index of moderated mediation
Index Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Gender of polite debaters .014 .072 -.10 .20

JXP 1321 S23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JXP 1321 S23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JXP 1321 S23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Please do not remove this page

Male or Female, Aggressive or Polite? An

Please do not remove this page

MALE OR FEMALE, AGGRESSIVE OR POLITE? AN EXAMINATION ON THE

Submitted to the Faculty

Coral Gables, Florida

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

MALE OR FEMALE, AGGRESSIVE OR POLITE? AN EXAMINATION ON THE

Male or Female, Aggressive or Polite? An Examination (August 2023)

Abstract of a dissertation at the University of Miami.

Dissertation supervised by Professor Nicholas Carcioppolo.

Given the exponential increase in exposure to online debates, a series of

experimental investigations were conducted to examine the impact of gender of

prefer polite debate communication over aggressive debate communication. More

implications are discussed at the end.

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vi

2 REVIEW AND RELATED LITERATURE ................................................. 6

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 21

4 STUDY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 27

5 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES/METHOD ....................................................... 41

REFERENCES …………… ....................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX I – DEBATE SCRIPT …………… ........................................................ 77

APPENDIX II - QUESTIONNAIRE ……………...................................................... 81

FIGURES …………… ................................................................................................ 86

TABLES …………… ................................................................................................. 92

Figure 1. Online viewers’ perception based on Gender Role Congruity …………… 86

Figure 4. Overall model framework ……………........................................................ 89

Figure 5. Model results (Study 2)…………… ............................................................ 90

Figure 6. Model results (Study 3)…………… ............................................................ 91

Table 1. Mediators as outcome variable (Study 2) …………… ................................. 92

Table 2. Dependent variable as outcome variable (Study 2)…………… ................... 94

Table 3. Direct effects (Study 2) …………… ............................................................. 95

Table 4. Mediators as outcome variable (Study 3) …………… ................................. 96

Table 5. Dependent variable as outcome variable (Study 3)…………… ................... 98

Table 6: Direct and indirect effects (Study 3) …………… ........................................ 99

recommendations section he stumbles upon an abundance of videos that suggest

abortion activists conversate with anti-abortion proponents” Another title might

suggest: “Pro-vaccine activist battles with anti-vaccine activist”. While these

watching videos, including debates. Both debates between presidential candidates

million viewers (Nielsen, 2020). In addition, the emergence of the Coronavirus

pandemic significantly affected online users’ engagement and consumption behavior,

(i.e., Braun, 2015; Garcia-Perdomo, 2021).

This rapid transition in media consumption behavior further extends to the

realm of important social conversations, discussions, and debates. Online dialogue,

an empirical and scholarly investigation on relevant aspects within the framework of

environment in which individuals seek information and entertainment, engage in

conversations, and establish a sense of community. However, it should be noted that

“purely” face-to-face situations in which the audience receives the conversation

and evaluation processes on who is perceived as the winner of the debate.

Furthermore, this empirical investigation aims to provide both practical and

evaluate conversations within a debate.

The main point of emphasis of this empirical investigation focuses on relevant

presented have been shown to be important indicators in regard to assessing debate

differences can significantly impact behavioral outcomes in online shopping (i.e.,

scholarly understanding of gender and argument delivery dynamics in debate spaces

attitudes on the debate (and the debaters themselves).

This research aims to empirically investigate the complex structure of (online)

of argument delivery on online viewers’ attitudes and evaluation processes (i.e.,