The separate and combined effects of (in)accessible and (un)sophisticated political communication on citizens’ reasoning and attitudes toward politicians

Abstract

Contemporary political discussions are often subject to criticism of increasing simplification. Yet, there are also explicit calls for simplicity, and worries about the effects of politicians’ overly complex talk. This paper addresses these concerns, distinguishing between inaccessibility (complex form) and unsophisticatedness (simplistic content), and exploring their separate and combined effects on citizens’ reasoning and attitudes toward politicians. Results of a 2 × 2 experiment (N=1,959) show that both inaccessible and unsophisticated political communication negatively affect citizens’ self-reported reasoning, and lower affective evaluations of the communicating politician. Yet, only a lack of sophistication lowers evaluations of politicians’ qualifications. When combined, inaccessibility and unsophisticatedness do not strengthen each other’s negative impact across the board. This study highlights the importance of considering both accessibility and sophisticatedness as separate dimensions, and presents novel insights into how these different forms of simplicity and complexity impact the way citizens think about politics and politicians.