POL PSYCH FINAL

Affective polarization

Intensification of partisan in-group vs. out-group dynamics

“The tendency of people identifying as Republicans or Democrats to view opposing partisans negatively and copartisans positively”

Policy polarization

Different parties/partisans may have moved apart on issues

Social network polarization

People’s social networks may have become more politically homogenous

Epistemic polarization

Media consumption may come from more polarized sources / may involved homogenous deity

Political polarization

Degree to which partisanship can be predicted from policy views — more previously non-politicized issues may have become politicized

Homophily

Tendency for people to form social or other ties with others who are similar to themselves

In social networks: people tending to have friends/contacts who agree with them politically

Residential homophily: people tending to live near others who agree with them politically

What were the results of the Affective Polarization Experiment using the IAT?

Both Republicans’ and Democrats’ show in-group preference in the Brief Implicit Association Test

There is also strong polarization in explicit “net feeling thermometer” scores (feelings about R’s on a 0-50 scale minus feelings about D’s on 0-50 scale)

Difference in the explicit measure is weaker among “lean” or “weak” partisan identifiers, but is still clearly present

What were the results of the Affective Polarization Experiment using resumes?

Both Republicans and Democrats exhibited a strong preference for hiring their in-group co-partisan (similar to results for race)

In-group preference for hiring was evident even when the out-group job candidate was more qualified

What were the results of the Affective Polarization Experiment using the “Dictator Game” and “Trust Game”?

In-group partisan preference was evident both in the Dictator Game and the Trust Game

What were the results of the Social Media and Political Polarization Experiment?

Republicans following a liberal bot became more conservative

Democrats following a conservative bot exhibited no significant difference

What were the results of the Political Polarization and Perceptions of Expertise Experiment?

Participants prefer to receive information about “blaps” from politically like-minded sources — political like-mindedness matters more than performance on the “blap” task

Participants’ judgements are more influenced by sources that are politically like-minded, when chosen

“Moral Contagion”

When political elites use moral-emotional language, message diffusion is enhanced

• Effect is stronger among conservatives

What are a few implications of Political Polarization? (2)

• Polarization makes compromise more difficult, thereby less likely to meaningfully address/solve problems

• Political system encourages further polarization (political competition within parties, dynamics of bargaining with the other side)

• Polarization makes it harder to root out corrupt/low quality politicians on your side

• Society becomes less pleasant and more stressful / bad mental health outcomes

• “Policy uncertainty”

• Possibility of political violence

What are some causes of Political Polarization? (3)

• Internet/social media

  • Enables selective exposure, people can choose news they agree with, find discussion partners who agree with them

  • Divergence of norms across different “audiences”

• Particular political figures affect trends

• End of Cold War (no longer salient international rival of similar perceived power)

• Increased gerrymandering

• Collapse of local newspapers/media

What is a potential positive feedback loop for Political Polarization?

Social media is profitable, becomes more entrenched in daily life, harder to move away from or imagine a world without it

What is a potential negative feedback loop for Political Polarization?

Some moment of crisis / disaster may get people to “wake up” and change their orientation toward political engagement

What are some potential correctives to Political Polarization? (3)

• Subsidies for local newspapers and media, likely to be a moderating force

• Reforms to / regulation of social media — better ways of flagging fake news / downweighting fake news

• “Healthy nationalism” — emphasizing common (national) identity rather than things not shared in common

• Electoral reforms

• Economic growth / more equitable economic outcomes

• Exaggerate a national threat and get people to rally against it

What is herd immunity?

Occurs when a large part of the population becomes immune to something

What were the result of the “Inoculation” Against Misinformation Experiment?

Inoculation, especially “Detailed”, is effective against misinformation

What were the results of the Fake News Game?

Active inoculation induced by playing the fake news game reduced the perceived reliability of previously unseen fake news stories

Through this, also reduced the pervasiveness of previously unseen fake news articles

What are the highest predictors for who believes in conspiracy theories? Which of these is the strongest?

The highest predictors are high scores on the Manichean, End Times, Secret Cabal, and Paranormal belief scales

The End Times variable is the strongest, even despite the correlation between conservatism and religiosity

Which members of disempowered groups have somewhat higher propensity toward conspiracy theory beliefs?

Low educated, African Americans

What are some potential ways to counter conspiracy theories? (2)

Increase transparency of government operations

Reform to social media algorithms (make them less prominent)

Social sanctioning of conspiracy thinking

Attitudinal inoculation

What were the results for the Labeling Something as a Conspiracy Theory Experiment? Does this conflict with the success of fake news inoculation strategies?

Simply labeling something as a conspiracy has no difference in whether people identify that thing as real or not, no matter peoples’ conspiratorial inclination

Referring to something as a “conspiracy theory” — if it’s an inoculation, it’s a very weak one

What were the results for the first (Machiavellian) Morality and Conspiracy Theorizing Experiment?

Respondents higher on Machiavellianism were more likely to have a personal willingness to conspire

Respondents with a higher personal willingness to conspire were in turn more likely to endorse conspiracy theories

What were the results for the second (Moral Recall) Morality and Conspiracy Theorizing Experiment?

Subjects in the Moral Recall group were less likely to be willing to participate in conspiracies, and less likely to believe in them

What were the results of the Cognitive Roots of Extreme Suspicion Experiment?

Anxiety increased belief in a conspiracy

For a corporation, conspiracy perceptions were higher for liberals

• No difference between liberals and conservatives on government conspiracies, and no difference

Multiple and unidentified victims indeed led to higher belief in a conspiracy

What were the results of the Milgram Obedience Experiment? What concepts tie into these results?

63% of subjects continued delivering shocks all the way through to the end

Most everyone questioned the experiment at some point, but most continued when prodded

Subjects who refused to administer the final shocks did not demand that the experiment be halted and did not go to check on the health of the victim

Obedience rate varies a bit with features of the setting, but not that much

Concepts:

• “Blind obedience to authority”

• “Mindlessly taking the first small step”

• “Theory of conformism”

• “Agentic state theory” — when a person views themself as the instrument for carrying out someone’s wishes, they don’t see themselves as responsible

What are the type kinds of diffusion of responsibility?

In hierarchical organizations: underlings claim that they were following orders, superiors claim they were just issuing directives and not doing anything per se

In a group of peers: individuals engage in activity they otherwise would never engage in alone (“groupthink”), or fail to act when they would never fail to act alone (“bystander effect”)

What were the results of the Bystander Effect Experiment?

The more people that were involved in the group, the longer it took for somebody to come to the victim’s aid

What are some political implications of the bystander effect? (2)

Large committees can be less efficient than small committees

Can reduce the pushback against corruption

Can reduce effective action against collective problems (i.e., climate change)

Social action takes place less than it “would” because people think others will do it

What were the results of the Reducing Intergroup Prejudice and Conflict Using the Media in Rwanda Experiment?

No difference between “New Dawn” group and control group in terms of “personal beliefs” about

• The origins of mass violence

• Bystanders’ responsibilities to intervene when others are promoting violence or intergroup conflict

• Whether people who suffer from trauma are “mad”

However, people in the “New Dawn” group were:

• More likely to reject norms that people must marry only in-group

• More likely to deny that “it is naive to trust people”

• More likely to disagree with “If i disagree with something that someone is doing or saying, I should keep quiet”

• More likely to agree that people should talk about traumatic experience

• More likely to express empathy for people in different roles in individual interviews

Nation without a state

A group of people who are physically dispersed across multiple states, in none of which they are the dominant group

What are two examples of variation within countries in the strength of nationalistic identification?

1. The poor tend to be more nationalistic than the rich

2. Minority groups tend to be less nationalistic than majority groups

What are some effects of nationalism? (3)

Tend to be more sensitive to threats to the nation-state, and to view the source of the threat through a more extreme image

More sensitive to opportunities to advance their country’s influence and more likely to support expanding state influence at the expense of others

More concerned with their country’s prestige and dignity than are non-nationalists, and are more willing to take action to rectify perceived affronts

Leaders of nation-states, compared to non-nation-states, are better able to make effective appeals to the citizens to make sacrifices to enhance state power

Public is more willing to serve in the military and have more intense commitment to the defense of the state

What were the results of the Subliminal Exposure to National Flags Experiment?

Exposure to the flag reduced polarization amongst subjects

• Also affected positions on issues

Other studies suggest that exposure to flags evoke in-group social norms as well as emphasizing in-group vs. out-group identities

“Cognitive rigidity”

When an actor becomes unwilling/unable to update their beliefs about the counterparty

What was Tito’s Rhetorical Stretgy?

A campaign of “brotherhood and unity”, stressing common Yugoslav national identity but recognizing Serbian/Croatian/etc ethnic identities — attempt to lead population to adopt “Yugoslavia” as the entity to which they would give primary loyalty

What was Tito’s Institutional Strategy?

Took care not to favor any one nationality and not allow the largest (Serbs) to dominate — nationalism was a crime punishable by long prison terms

Ally image

a country or group perceived to be equal to the perceiver’s country in terms of culture and capability, with good intentions, multiple groups in decision-making roles, and associated with threat or opportunity 

Barbarian image

a country or group perceived to be superior in capability, inferior in culture, monolithic in decision making, and associated with extreme threat 

Colonial image

A country or group perceived as inferior in culture and capability, benign in intentions, monolithic in decision making, and associated with opportunity 

Core community non-nation states

countries with a dominant ethnic or sectarian community that believes that its members are the primary nation embodied in the country and that identified with that nation in the strongest terms. In addition, that community tends to have great capability and control of the political system

Degenerate image

a country or group perceived as superior or equal in culture and capability, but lacking resolve and will, and associated with perceptions of opportunity 

Deterrence

the threat by one political actor to take actions in response to another actor’s potential actions, which would make the costs incurred far outweigh any possible benefits obtained by the aggressor

Enemy image

the enemy is perceived as relatively equal in capability and culture. In its most extreme form, the diabolical enemy is seen as irrevocably aggressive in motivation, monolithic in decisional structure, and highly rational in decision making  

Imperialist image

a country or group perceived to be superior in capability, dominating in culture, exploitive in intentions, and associated with threat

Irredentism

the desire to join together all parts of a national community within a single territorial state

Multinational states

a country in which several groups of people, who think of themselves as separate nations and who actually have the capacity to establish viable independent states, live together in a single country

Nationalism

the belief that a group of people, or a community, belong together in an independent country, and a willingness to grant that community primary loyalty

Nation-state

a state in which the average citizen has a primary identity with the national community, believes that community should be an independent state, and grants that community primary loyalty

Rogue image

a country or group perceived as inferior in culture and capability, with monolithic decision making, and associated with threat

Scapegoat

group in which blame is put for society’s problems

Security dilemma

conflict in which the efforts made by one state to defend itself are simultaneously seen as threatening by its opponents, even if those actions were not intended to be threatening

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

1. Aggression is always produced by frustration

2. Frustration always produces aggression 

Authoritarian personality (3)

conventionalism, submission to authority figures, authoritarian aggression (aggression towards those who are not conventional), anti-intraception, superstition and stereotype, values power and toughness, destructive and cynical, projectivity, and excessive concern with the sexual activity of others

reconceptualization: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism

Conformity

the tendency to change one’s beliefs or behaviors so that they are consistent with the standards set by the group

Dehumanization

a process in which a particular social group is regularly described as less than human and therefore deserving of treatment one would not administer to a human being

Image theory

A political psychological concept equivalent to a stereotype of a political group or country. Images contain information about a country’s capabilities, culture, intentions, the kinds of decision-making groups (lots of people vs. a small group), and perceptions of threat or opportunity

Moral disengagement

individuals can disengage from their sense of morality in order to commit inhumane acts

Motivation

The reason or reasons why individuals look for alternatives to their present life situations

Need for affiliation

A personality trait involving concern for close relations with others

Need for power

A personality trait involving concern for impact and prestige

Propaganda

The deliberate attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist

Deindividuation

A loss of self awareness and evaluation apprehension that can occur when individuals join groups and become anonymous

Depluralization

When previous group identities are stripped away

Emotions

A complex assortment of affects, beyond merely good or bad feelings, to include delight, serenity, anger, sadness, fear, and more

Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO)

An explanation of how joining a group can fulfill psychological needs. According to this perspective, joining a group can satisfy three basic needs:

1. Inclusion

2. Control

3. Affection

Recruitment

Plays a central role in any terrorist group, in which vetting is a continual process that takes place throughout the recuits’ and then the members’ tenure

Roles

Expectations about how a person ought to behave in a group

State-sponsored terrorism

Occurs when a state supports a terrorist group either directly or indirectly

State terror

Acts of terrorism a state conducts against another state or against its own citizens

Suicide bomber

A person who is willing to commit suicide in order to ensure maximum effectiveness in a terrorist attack

Terrorist personality

A stereotypical view of terrorists as socio/psychopaths, in which individuals tend to disregard and violate the rights of others and fail to feel empathy for their victims

Extremist

A person who is excessive and inappropriately enthusiastic and/or inappropriately concerned with significant life purposes, implying a focused and highly personalized interpretation of the world

• Politically, it is behavior that is strongly controlled by ideology, where the influence of ideology is such that it excludes or attenuates other social, political, or personal forces that might be expected to control and influence behavior

Is there an extremist personality?

Basically, no

Studies suggest there is no clear “personality profile” for extremism

What are some contexts for Extremism? (3)

Terrorist organizations

Ideological splinter groups

Race-based splinter groups

Paramilitary organizations

Organization of state terror

Acts of genocide

Legitimacy

A psychological property of an authority, institution, or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that it is appropriate, proper, and just

Legitimating ideology

A set of justifications or “legitimizing myths”

What are the 3 distinct sources of legitimacy distinguished by Weber?

1. Traditional authority: legitimacy based upon deference to customs and values

2. Charismatic authority: legitimacy based upon devotion to the actions of character of an authority

3. Rational bureaucratic authority: legitimacy linked to the process of rule creation and interpretation

What are the two kinds of fairness?

1. Procedural fairness

   • Focuses on the fairness and transparency of the processes by which decisions are made

2. Outcome fairness

   • Focuses on the fairness of the ultimate outcomes of a decision-making process

What were the differences in results between the Ultimatum Game Experiment and the Dictator Game Experiment? What accounts for these results?

Ultimatum Game: In this game, the most common proposals are something like $6 to proposer, $4 to responder; even split proposals also fairly common

• Responder: inclined to reject offers that were unfair

• Proposer: might anticipate rejections, or care about fairness themselves

• Game reflects some combination of altruism and strategic concern for being rejected

Dictator Game: In this game, one average, proposers offer about $2

• Since proposer does not need to think about responder rejecting the offer, they can act in self-interest

What were the results of the first Fairness Judgments experiment (plaintiff and defendant) and what did this show?

• Subjects in the role of plaintiff:

  • Predicted that the judge gave higher awards to the motorcyclist (plaintiff)

  • Identified the “fair” outcome as resulting in larger payments to the plaintiff

• Differences related to “breakdowns” in bargaining:

  • Plaintiff-defendant pairs whose fairness judgments diverged more, were more likely to fail to reach an agreement (and thus paying higher costs)

  • Plaintiff-defendant pairs whose fairness judgments were closer tended to reach agreements relatively quickly

What were the results of the second Fairness Judgments experiment (plaintiff and defendant) and what did this show?

Experiment only differed in that subjects only were told their role after reading the case materials (but before doing the rest of the experiment)

• Results: discrepancies between plaintiff and defendant guesses and fairness judgments were reduced by about 1/3

  • Only 6% of the pairs failed to reach an agreement when bargaining (compared to 28% in OG)

Some people argue that this phenomenon helps explain the intractability of conflicts — if different sides form fairness judgments that are biased in a “self-serving” way, this makes it harder for bargains to be struck or peace agreements to be made

What were the result of the Return of the Ultimatum Game and what did this show?

Both subjects in a pair took a trivia quiz, and whoever got the highest score becomes the proposer and loser becomes the responder

• On average, proposers offer less than in the OG game

• On average, responders are willing to accept lower offers than in the OG game

The addition of a trivia quiz changed the way both subjects judged fairness!

What were the results of the Science Denial Across the Political Divide experiment? What did this show?

Subjects who do not believe in climate change saw the differences in the bigger numbers and determined that cities that enacted these standards were more likely to have an increase in emissions, whereas subjects who do believe in climate change looked deeper into the ratio of the numbers and determined that cities that enacted these standards were more likely to have a decrease in emissions (the logically correct answer)

• People who begin with one of these heuristics, but who are motivated to seek evidence for the effectiveness of standards, are likelier to look deeper and find the logically correct answer

• People who are happy with the heuristic answer (A > C) are likely to stop there

What are two ways huge disruption (e.g., Covid) inspire motivated cognition?

1. Need for closure/uncertainty avoidance

2. Dissonance reduction

What is Reactance?

When something threatens or eliminates people’s freedom of behavior, they experience psychological reactance, a motivational state that drives freedom restoration

What were the results of the Reactance Interferes with Persuasion experiment using high threat and low threat alcohol deterrence?

In the High Threat condition, participants:

• Experienced more anger

• Communicated more negative thoughts in subsequent free response task about what is on their mind

These outcomes facilitated additional reactance, causing:

• Worse attitudes toward the drinking message

• Lower self-reported intentions to limit their drinking

What were the results of the Effect of Narrative News Format on Empathy for Stigmatized Groups experiment?

Study compared narrative vs. non-narrative descriptions of healthcare related dilemmas for three different groups (immigrants, prisoners, elderly), and each subject reads one article about one of these groups, randomly assigned to one of the two conditions

• Result 1: News stories about stigmatized groups were more effective at inducing transportation (getting involved in a story) when the story was presented in a narrative as opposed to non-narrative format

• Result 2: News stories about members of stigmatized groups were more effective at inducing compassion toward the stigmatized group when the story was presented in a narrative as opposed to non-narrative format

• Result 3: The intensity of compassionate feelings for members of stigmatized groups showed a positive association with attitudes toward the stigmatized group

• Result 4: Attitude toward stigmatized groups was positively associated with intentions to perform behaviors that are beneficial to the group

• Result 5: Attitude toward stigmatized groups was positively associated with increased interest in more information about the stigmatized group

What were the result of the first Empathy and Political Polarization experiment using empathy, polarization, and social distance as a measure?

Higher empathy means greater in-party favoritism and higher likelihood of rating opposite party as “very unfavorable”

However, empathy also leads to lower social distance (being less upset by opposite party marriages)