Voters often rely on cognitive shortcuts to identify political actors and assess politics. Policy issues and positions act as key cues, as they are linked to specific political parties via issue ownership theories. However, beyond substantive positions, another cue is hitherto less explored: the tone of the debate and whether political actors communicate respectfully with political opponents or resort to personal and/or delegitimizing attacks (i.e., elite incivility). This study examines whether and how (un-) civil elite rhetoric serves as an additional heuristic for voters’ perceptions of politics. Using a survey experiment in Germany (N = 1,879), respondents are exposed to fictitious politicians arguing about a policy issue with varying levels of elite incivility. Respondents indicate (1) which party, if any, they associate with each politician, and (2) how they perceive differences in the stated policy positions. Preliminary results show that respondents deduce additional information from the level of elite incivility, complementing what they derive from policy issues: First, compared to civil discourse, high levels of elite incivility increase the likelihood that respondents associate politicians with specific parties. The respective party attributions reflect common expectations about parties’ rhetorical behavior. Second, substantively identical policy positions are perceived as more polarized when the discourse is uncivil. This suggests that elite incivility could signal further distance to political opponents. These findings highlight the role of elite rhetoric in shaping citizens’ perception of politics and issue polarization in an age of increasing incivility.