POLI 100M: Poli-cal Psychology Lecture 8: Polariza-on Taylor N. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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
• n 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?

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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

Percentage Believing Abortion Should Be Legal

Married- Wants No More Children Strong Chance of Defect Any Reason Not Married Pregnant as a Result of Rape Low Income- Can’t Afford More Children Woman’s Health Seriously Endangered

Source: General Social Survey

Source: Seth Hill

Source: General Social Survey Note: Partisans include strong and weak identifiers.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Average Number of Circumstances Legal

Democrats Independents Republicans

ABO ABORTION BY Y PAR ARTISANSHIP

Source: Seth Hill

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
• rder 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
• ther 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

• Care
• Fairness

Conserva%ves

• Loyalty
• Authority
• Sanc-ty

Because members of two poli-cal camps are to a degree blind to

• ne 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

• ne another.

Apoli-cal Differences Between Liberals and Conserva-ves

Liberals or Conserva-ves?

• Au Bon Pain
• Schlotzky’s Deli
• Whataburger
• California Pizza

Kitchen

• O’Charley’s
• Cracker Barrel
• Whole Foods
• Trader Joe’s
• Piggly Wiggly
• Budweiser
• Miller
• Guinness
• Heineken
• Google Chrome
• Internet Explorer
• Simple Art
• Dogs
• Cats
• Cultural fusion

food

• Documentaries
• Ac-on movies
• Tide
• Great Value

Detergent

• Abstract art

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?

Demog Social Media Friend

• Cand. Prefs.

Religiosity Home Regular News Sources

Confidence in Guessing Partisanship Based on Different Cues

Informational Cue Confidence 1 2 3 4 5

Chrome Cats Documentaries Messy Desk Fusion Food Porn Ok Met Internet Explorer Dogs Action Films Neat Desk Traditional Food No Porn Times Square

Accuracy Inferring Ideology From Apolitical Cues

Percentage of Accurate Respondents 20 40 60 80 100

Empirically Liberal Characteristic Empirically Conservative Characteristic

Chrome Cats Documentaries Messy Desk Fusion Food 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

Comfort Discussing Politics 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Democrat Participant Republican Participant

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?