Political psychology - quiz 4 pt.2

Political Ads

• Opponents attach the candidates to specific ideas, images, (the WH), and run with it in their advertising. 

• negative ads vs. positive ads 

Ideological Polarization

differences in policy preferences/ issue positions 

Affective Polarization

(risen since the 80s): emotional dislike/hostility toward opposing parties (social enemies) 

Percieved Polarization

belief that parties are farther apart than they actually are

Social Polarization

when partisan divisions align with race, religion, geography, culture (produces "mega-identities") 

Drivers/Sources of Polarization: Elite-level:

• Party elites have become more ideologically distinct to strategically use polarization to mobilize supporters 

• Political leaders frame the opposition in moral + identity-based terms 

• They use strategic use of negative partisanship (the other party is a threat) 

Drivers/Sources of Polarization: Institutional

• Electoral incentives: winner takes all elections / rewarded for being the biggest Democrat or Republican 

• Media Environment: echo-chambers, social media, news channels, algorithms

• Campaign Finance/gerrymandering: trying to redraw their lines/redistricting 

Mass-level Psychological 

• Social Identity Theory: partisans group

• Motivated Reasoning: individuals process information to defend their party instead of for accuracy 

• Minformation: accept more identity-incongruent falsehoods

• Affective contagion: emotional cues spread through their social networks, intensifying anger + fear

Affective Contagion

emotional cues spread through their social networks, intensifying anger + fear

Spread of Misinformation

• Accuracy goals: desire to hold true beliefs 

• Identity/Social goals; desire to hold beliefs aligned with ones in-group, maintain social status, avoid rejection 

Misinformation

When Identity goals are salient, individuals may prioritize beliefs that affirm group membership even when they conflict with factual accuracy

-Info context: who is the source? Is the info aligned with the group's network? Is the group exposed to diverse info? 

Sharing dynamics

beliefs/sharing aren't the same; one can share info that one doesn't believe because it fosters group cohesion

Selective exposure/trust

people often seek info from in-group sources, which create echochambers and identity-reinforcing beliefs 

Network effects/amplification

spread of misinformation increases when the network structure is dense / trust is high, and out-group correction is low 

Mechanisms 

• Identity salience: when group identity is strong, people are more likely to accept/share info that aligns with in-group identity even when inaccurate 

• Selected trust/Motivated Sourcing 

• Sharing as a social signal: less as a belief statement and more as group loyalty 

• Contextual amplifiers (media) 

Consequences of Polarization

• Decline in trust of people/institutions 

  • runs deep (not only politics, but morals as well) 

• Gridlock and legislative dysfunction 

  • Compromise becomes politically costly 

• Erosion of democratic norms 

  • tolerance of anti-democratic actions for party benefits 

• Social Segregation

  • friendships, workplace, marriages, start to align with political partisan identity (increasingly) 

Positives: 

• Increased political engagement: turnout/activism

• Clearer political choices, especially at the Federal level 

• Issue clarification: solidifies moral debates that require confrontation 

Individual Cognitive Processes

Motivated reasoning, biased info processing, and personality dispositions that predispose people to certain political attitudes 

Group Level Social Processes

originate from influences from one's social group

Two key conclusions

• 1. Polarization is as much social as it is cognitive 

  • Any attempt solely to correct misinformation or appeal to reason is limited if partisan identity and emotion are primary drivers

• 2. Context matters

  • domain specificity 

    • issues framed as moral threats (like immigration) resist depolarizing intentions more than instrumental (tangible) policy issues (like infrastructure, budget cuts, taxes)