Perceived Political Polatization in the USA

« Older   Newer »
  Share  
loytymista
view post Posted on 6/11/2014, 23:15




Hello everyone, it has been a long time.

I have been to a lecture of an American professor and there he discussed some psychological knowledge about politics.
I thought you may find this interesting. Here we go:

Perceived Political Polarization in the USA.
Summary of some biases:

Surprisingly these biases apply more to educated and intelligent persons: they are more capable because of their intelligence to create their own truth.

1. Exaggerate
When individuals are categorized in groups, the individuals will feel that they will differ more from the individuals in the other group than they really are.
In the USA we have the Democrats and the Republicans. Perceived polarization will not be a bad thing for the parties in election time. When individuals feel they are polarized they are more likely to do something for the politic party, and vote. In the lecture they named a number of 9% more, I don't recall where they got it from.

In The American National Election Studies, they measured opinions on political issues over time. Here they confirmed that there was an perceived difference between the parties with a factor of 2, while in real this was a whole lot less.

2. Partisan Identification
If you feel you are very different from the other group, it confirms that your group is of more value if you are correct. This is why individuals like to believe the other group is very different. In real life the correlation of a persons attitude with the politic party is very weak. R = 0.02

3. Attitude Extremity
If a person is feeling very aroused by an issue, he assumes that other person is also very aroused by this issue. The person will think that the person of the other group will think the opposite on the same arousal level (projection and reflection). This is also a false assumption.

4. Climate Policy
Climate policy is an issue of our time. When individuals thought the climate policy came from their party they liked it more. When they thought it was from the other party they liked it less.

That was my summary :)
Hope you found it interesting!
 
Top
view post Posted on 7/11/2014, 00:44
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


Group identification is a very curious phenomenon.

On your last point, I've heard that during the 2004 (?) elections, a significant percentage of Bush voters assumed he had all kinds of progressive and environmental plans, like signing the Kyoto treaty. While this would have been a rather good idea for the environment, and it was a hugely popular policy among the population at the time, Bush had never indicated a desire to do so, nor did he touch on it, ever. It's just something people wanted to believe, I suppose, or they couldn't fathom their candidate not to favour this thing.

As for elections and politics: the politicians and media have a lot to gain from pretending the different parties are very different, when in fact, they are not. Especially in the first past the post and presidential voting systems, it appears that parties are strongly driven to approach each other on most core issues, while making a big fuss about frivolous difference. Once a voter is decided (and in the process not confused about the real issues too much), he will confirmation bias his way into thinking that all these frivolous things that the newspaper dredges up means that his candidate is the saviour of the planet, while the opponent will destroy all that is good. And this while their platforms are probably almost identical.

Highlighting the differences, no matter how small, makes sense for media outlets. People buy their products because they want to figure out how to vote. "Party X and Y agree on yet another big thing - alternate solutions have no chance of winning this election" is a story you can only run so many times.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 7/11/2014, 12:58




Did the speaker have anything to say about those who do not identify? In this country there has been a fall in voter turn out over time and what you often hear is "they are all the same", with the implication that none of the mainstream parties represent that person so there is no point in voting.

I do not think that is confined to this country, though I may be wrong
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 4/12/2014, 14:54




http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-bus...green-marketing

I thought this was interesting. Of course it plays into my own view that we are mostly influenced by "stories", but it purports to show that this is true because of the way our brains are structured. To some extent is is consonant with Kelly's construct theory, of which I am also a fan.

The interviewee maintains that political discourse works through the fact that our views are subtly determined by our moral positions. How policy is perceived depends on how words relate to an existing framework of morality. Rather depressingly he concludes that facts will never win hearts, minds, or policy arguments. Though depressing it seems clear to me that this is demonstrably true in many many cases.

The piece is subject to further comment here:

http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2014/11/12/...koff-seriously/

as applied to the immigration panic in the UK at present.

It is charged that the left have failed to understand what Lakoff is saying and has ceded the moral framework to the neoliberals: and this seems to be true. In the past the process ran the other way and the establishment of the welfare state was framed in just the same way: a moral narrative underpinned the principles: it could do so again. But it isn't because the frame has been built over many years by an ideologically aware neoliberal movement. The left has no appreciation of the importance of language in this sense, it it is persuasively argued.

How the zeitgeist changes has long exercised my and this contributes some insight, already vaguely felt, but here made explicit
 
Top
3 replies since 6/11/2014, 23:15   105 views
  Share