Studied by 19 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
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?
The poor tend to be more nationalistic than the rich
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
Aggression is always produced by frustration
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:
Inclusion
Control
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?
Traditional authority: legitimacy based upon deference to customs and values
Charismatic authority: legitimacy based upon devotion to the actions of character of an authority
Rational bureaucratic authority: legitimacy linked to the process of rule creation and interpretation
What are the two kinds of fairness?
Procedural fairness
Focuses on the fairness and transparency of the processes by which decisions are made
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?
Need for closure/uncertainty avoidance
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)
Note
Flashcard