Suchergebnisse

peer-reviewed ; We investigate experiences of disillusionment as a source of political polarization. Disillusioning experiences motivate a search for meaning, and we propose that people respond by seeking reassurance in political ideologies, reflected in political polarization. We first tested this hypothesis in the context of two major political events: the European Union (EU) membership referendum in the United Kingdom and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In Study 1, disillusionment stemming from the EU referendum outcome led "remain" supporters to express more extreme political views. In Study 2, we measured political stance and disillusionment before and after the U.S. presidential election. Political polarization occurred among Clinton supporters, and this was mediated by increased disillusionment levels. In Study 3, we manipulated disillusionment and found that disillusioned participants expressed stronger support for diverging forms of political activism. Consistent with our approach, this effect was mediated by epistemic motivations. Implications regarding the effect of political polarization in society are discussed.

We investigate experiences of disillusionment as a source of political polarization. Disillusioning experiences motivate a search for meaning, and we propose that people respond by seeking reassurance in political ideologies, reflected in political polarization. We first tested this hypothesis in the context of two major political events: the European Union (EU) membership referendum in the United Kingdom and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In Study 1, disillusionment stemming from the EU referendum outcome led "remain" supporters to express more extreme political views. In Study 2, we measured political stance and disillusionment before and after the U.S. presidential election. Political polarization occurred among Clinton supporters, and this was mediated by increased disillusionment levels. In Study 3, we manipulated disillusionment and found that disillusioned participants expressed stronger support for diverging forms of political activism. Consistent with our approach, this effect was mediated by epistemic motivations. Implications regarding the effect of political polarization in society are discussed.

AbstractWe use a network‐based method to explore bifurcation in the multidimensional opinion‐based political identity structure from 2012 to 2020 in American National Election Studies data. We define polarization as ideological clustering which occurs when attitudes are linked or aligned across group‐relevant dimensions. We identify relevant dimensions with a theory‐driven approach and confirm them with the data‐driven Boruta method, validating the importance of these items for self‐reported political identity in these samples. To account for data sets having different sizes, we bootstrapped to obtain comparable samples. For each, a bipartite projection generates a network where edges represent similarity in responses between dyads. The data provide us with preidentified groups (Republicans and Democrats). We use them as our network communities and to calculate an edge‐based polarization. Results show bifurcation progressively increasing, with a striking increase from 2016 to 2020. We visualize these identity‐related shifts in opinion structure over time and discuss how polarization results from both between‐ and within‐group dynamics. We apply a similar method to a smaller data set (N = 294) to explore short‐term fluctuations before and after the 2020 election. Results suggest that between‐group polarization is more evident after than before the election, because in‐group opinion dynamics result in a more synchronized opinion‐space for Republicans.

peer-reviewed ; We use a network-based method to explore bifurcation in the multidimensional opinion-based political identity structure from 2012 to 2020 in American National Election Studies data. We define polarization as ideological clustering which occurs when attitudes are linked or aligned across group-relevant dimensions. We identify relevant dimensions with a theory-driven approach and confirm them with the data-driven Boruta method, validating the importance of these items for self-reported political identity in these samples. To account for data sets having differ ent sizes, we bootstrapped to obtain comparable samples. For each, a bipartite projection generates a network where edges represent similarity in responses between dyads. The data provide us with preidentified groups (Republicans and Democrats). We use them as our network communities and to calculate an edge-based polarization. Results show bifurcation progressively increasing, with a striking increase from 2016 to 2020. We visualize these identity-related shifts in opinion structure over time and discuss how polariza tion results from both between- and within-group dynam ics. We apply a similar method to a smaller data set(N = 294) to explore short-term fluctuations before and after the 2020 election. Results suggest that between-group polarization is more evident after than before the election, because in-group opinion dynamics result in a more synchronized opinion-space for Republicans

Populism is a powerful social force that has reshaped the political landscapes of many nations since the turn of the 21st century. Much of the success of populist movements is attributed to various social crises and a deep dissatisfaction with political systems. In the present issue, we sought to find papers that investigate what drives the demand for populist politics during crises on a psychological level and, correspondingly, how populist rhetoric influences the way individuals think about, and respond, to crises. In this editorial, we introduce a multidisciplinary issue and summarize the key themes stemming from the articles included. The contributions addressed various forms of crises; from identity issues to global transformations, and various aspects of populism; from the antiestablishment attitudes of the public, to the populist rhetoric of political actors. There was also a key theme centered on the role of emotions. We believe that these topics are of great interest to political psychologists of any mold. We hope that this special issue can play a part in increasing our understanding of how populism thrives during crises and in driving future research on this topic.

Reducing the spread of infectious viruses (e.g., COVID‐19) can depend on societal compliance with effective mitigations. Identifying factors that influence adherence can inform public policy. In many cases, public health messaging has become highly moralized, focusing on the need to act for the greater good. In such contexts, a person's moral identity may influence behavior and serve to increase compliance through different mechanisms: if a person sees compliance as the right thing to do (internalization) and/or if a person perceives compliance as something others will notice as the right thing to do (symbolization). We argue that in societies that are more politically polarized, people's political ideology may interact with their moral identity to predict compliance. We hypothesized that where polarization is high (e.g., USA), moral identity should positively predict compliance for liberals to a greater extent than for conservatives. However, this effect would not occur where polarization is low (e.g., New Zealand). Moral identity, political ideology, and support for three different COVID‐19 mitigation measures were assessed in both nations (N = 1,980). Results show that while moral identity can influence compliance, the political context of the nation must also be taken into account.