Examining the influence of politeness on trust in political interview: A pragmatic perspective
In February 2013, a corruption scandal unfolded within the Indonesian Ministry of Finance, led by Rafael Alun Trisambodo, sparking public outrage as reported by various news outlets. Many citizens expressed their disappointment, including calls to stop paying taxes. This case significantly eroded public trust in the Ministry. To restore trust, Minister Sri Mulyani proactively engaged in talk show interviews to provide clarity on the situation, as she articulated during one such interview. Trust in politicians is essential for healthy democracies, fostering civic engagement, and adherence to the law. Conversely, a deficit of trust breeds public unrest, disobedience, and resistance to the government initiatives. While previous research has focused on the detrimental effects of political incivility, our study explores a less examined avenue: can politeness, as a form of civility, effectively boost public trust in politicians? We analyse the influence of a politician’s politeness strategies on public trust using data from a talk show interview, extracted from a Youtube video titled “Tangan Besi Sri Mulyani.” The methodology involves analysing politeness strategies, assessing polite behaviour, and studying the sentiment of public comments on the video. The study found that while the politician consistently using polite language during the interview, and the sentiment of the public comments mostly positive, politeness did not emerge as the primary focus of public attention. Examining courtesy in YouTube comments (3%) revealed it wasn’t the key driver of trust. Other factors, including competence, intelligence, credibility, knowledge, and track record, may play a more significant role. While politeness may not automatically build trust, it can play a key role in restoring positive perceptions in situations of conflict or criticism. A deeper analysis of the 3% of comments focusing on politeness revealed it shapes individual perceptions, affecting their support and expressions. For instance, politeness was generally associated with good manners and favourability, while impoliteness led to negative criticism and increased support for the target of the attack.