POLI 100M: Poli-cal Psychology Lecture 8: Polariza-on Taylor N. Carlson ?eenstr@ucsd.edu
Announcements • Final project is due Saturday, Sept. 9, 11:30am – Submit to Turn it In on TritonEd – Review the rubric and detailed assignment guidelines on TritonEd • Office hours next week Tuesday and Thursday 2:30-4:30 • If you want feedback on a rough draW, please send it to me by Monday, 9/4 at 5:00pm
Last Time • Voters some-mes reward or punish poli-cians for things beyond their control – Natural disasters, “acts of God” – Sports outcomes • Mood affects our evalua-ons
What ques-ons do you have?
Today: Driving Ques-ons • What is affec-ve polariza-on? • What are the consequences of affec-ve polariza-on? • How (and why) are liberals and conserva-ves different on apoli-cal dimensions?
Today: Learning Outcomes • Define the following key terms: polariza-on, affec-ve polariza-on, social polariza-on, sor-ng, moral founda-ons theory, apoli-cal differences • Compare and contrast liberals and conserva-ves on both poli-cal and apoli-cal dimensions • Explain the main theories about why liberals and conserva-ves are different • Describe some of the consequences of affec-ve polariza-on
Polariza-on
What is polariza-on? • Dic-onary: division into two sharply contras-ng contras-ng groups or sets of opinions or beliefs • Issue Polariza-on: individuals have more extreme policy preferences; Democrats’ and Republicans’ policy preferences are farther apart, less similar • Affec-ve Polariza-on: the divergence in affect toward one’s “in” and “out” par-es – Democrats have increasingly nega-ve affect toward Republicans, posi-ve affect toward Democrats – Republicans have increasingly nega-ve affect toward Democrats, posi-ve affect toward Republicans
Polariza-on in the Public?
Issue Polariza-on? • Not really. • On most major policy issues, most Americans have moderate opinions
Example: Abor-on • Should it be possible for a pregnant woman to get a legal abor-on if: – There is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby – She is married and doesn’t want more children – Her health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy – Her family has a very low income and can’t afford more children – She became pregnant as a result of rape – She is not married and does not want to marry the father
WHEN SHOULD ABORTION BE LEGAL? 100 90 80 Percentage Believing Abortion Should Be Legal 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Married- Wants No More Children Strong Chance of Defect Any Reason Not Married Low Income- Can’t Afford More Children Pregnant as a Result of Rape Woman’s Health Seriously Endangered Source: Seth Hill Source: General Social Survey
ABORTION BY ABO Y PAR ARTISANSHIP 6 5 Average Number of Circumstances Legal 4 3 2 1 0 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Democrats Independents Republicans Source: General Social Survey Source: Seth Hill Note: Partisans include strong and weak identifiers.
Sor-ng?
Source: Seth Hill
Source: Seth Hill
Source: Seth Hill
Source: Seth Hill
Affec-ve Polariza-on
Affec-ve Polariza-on • The divergence in affect toward the “in” and “out” par-es – “in” party is the party with which you iden-fy – “out” party is the party opposite yours • Out-party hos-lity is stronger than in-party favori-sm
Why does affec-ve polariza-on occur? • Social Iden-ty Theory: – Tajfel & Turner – Groups to which people belong are an important source of self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of belonging to the social world – In order to increase our self-image, we enhance the status of the group to which we belong • Cheering for our in group • Disparaging the out group
SIT: 3 Mental Processes 1. Social Categoriza-on: categorize objects in order to understand them; organize people into groups 2. Social Iden-fica-on: adopt the iden-ty of the group we categorize ourselves as belonging to 3. Social Comparison: Compare our group with other social groups; want our group to compare favorably
How strong is affec-ve polariza-on?
Source: Iygenar, Sood, & Lelkes 2012
Source: Iygenar, Sood, & Lelkes 2012
Nicholson et al. (2016) • Find individuals who support the opposite presiden-al candidate as less alrac-ve – Democrats thought Romney supporters were less alrac-ve – Republicans thought Obama supporters were less alrac-ve
Iyengar & Westwood (2015) • Par-sanship is a poli-cal and social divide • Par-sanship and par-san affect are strong cues for nonpoli-cal judgments and behaviors • Par-san discrimina-on rivals racial discrimina-on
Implicit Amtudes • Implicit amtudes: traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling, thought, or ac-on toward social objects (Greenwald & Banaji 1995) • What is the key advantage of implicit measures?
Do par-sans discriminate against out- par-sans on non-poli-cal things?
Do par-sans discriminate against out-par-sans? • Yes. • Party cue exerted the strongest impact on selec-on for most par-cipants • 80% of par-cipants chose their in party candidate • Probability of selec-ng an out-party candidate never rose above 0.3, even if the out-party candidate was more academically qualified
Polariza-on Summary • Elites are polarized, unclear whether the public is polarized on issue amtudes • Public is increasingly sorted • Affec%ve polariza%on is powerful
Ques-ons?
Why are liberals and conserva-ves so different? Moral Founda/ons Theory
The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conserva-ves • TED Talk
MFT: Five Founda-ons 1. Care-Harm 2. Fairness-Chea-ng 3. Loyalty-Betrayal 4. Authority/Respect-Subversion 5. Sanc-ty/Purity-Degrada-on
MFT: 5 Founda-ons and Ideology Liberals Conserva%ves • Care • Loyalty • Fairness • Authority • Sanc-ty Because members of two poli-cal camps are to a degree blind to one or more of the moral founda-ons of the others, they may perceive morally driven words or behavior as having another basis – at best self-interested, at worst, evil, and thus demonize one another.
Apoli-cal Differences Between Liberals and Conserva-ves
Liberals or Conserva-ves? • Au Bon Pain • Google Chrome • Schlotzky’s Deli • Internet Explorer • Whataburger • Simple Art • California Pizza • Dogs Kitchen • Cats • O’Charley’s • Cultural fusion • Cracker Barrel food • Whole Foods • Documentaries • Trader Joe’s • Ac-on movies • Piggly Wiggly • Tide • Budweiser • Great Value • Miller Detergent • Guinness • Abstract art • Heineken
Whose Bedroom? • Variety of books • Travel books • Classic and modern rock music • Art supplies • Maps
Whose Bedroom? • Calendars • Stamps • Sports items • American flags • Alcohol bolles • Cleaning supplies
Whose desk?
Whose desk?
Can we accurately infer ideology from apoli-cal cues?
Confidence in Guessing Partisanship Based on Different Cues 5 4 Confidence 3 2 1 0 Social Friend Regular Demog Media Cand. Prefs. Religiosity Home News Sources Informational Cue
Percentage of Accurate Respondents 100 20 40 60 80 0 Chrome Empirically Conservative Characteristic Empirically Liberal Characteristic Cats Documentaries Messy Desk Accuracy Inferring Ideology Fusion Food From Apolitical Cues Porn Ok Met Internet Explorer Dogs Action Films Neat Desk Traditional Food No Porn Times Square
Average Comfort Discussing Politics by Participant Partisanship Among Those Who Accurately Identified Discussant Partisanship 3.0 Democrat Participant Republican Participant 2.5 Comfort Discussing Politics 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Chrome Cats Documentaries Messy Desk Fusion Food Porn Ok Met Internet Explorer Dogs Action Films Neat Desk Traditional Food No Porn Times Square
MFT and Apoli-cal Cues Summary • Liberals and conserva-ves have different moral founda-ons, which could explain part of why they talk past and demonize each other • Perhaps as a consequence of moral founda-ons, personality, socializa-on, etc. liberals and conserva-ves are different on apoli/cal dimensions too • These apoli-cal differences are no-ceable and affect how comfortable we are discussing poli-cs with someone described with these characteris-cs
Ques-ons?
Recommend
More recommend
