Advertisement

The Social Dimension of Political Values

  • Elizabeth C. ConnorsEmail author
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Worries about the instability of political attitudes and lack of ideological constraint among the public are often pacified by the assumption that individuals have stable political values. These political values are assumed to help individuals filter political information and thus both minimize outside influence and guide people through complex political environments. This perspective, though, assumes that political values are stable and consistent across contexts. This piece questions that assumption and argues that political values are socially reinforced—that is, that political values are not internal predispositions, but the result of social influence. I consider this idea with two empirical tests: an experimental test that recreates the transmission of political values and an observational analysis of the effect of politically homogeneous social contexts on political value endorsements. Results suggest that political values are socially reinforced. The broader implication of my findings is that the concepts scholars term “political values” may be reflections of individuals’ social contexts rather than values governing political behavior.

Keywords

Political values Social influence Social cues 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9530_MOESM1_ESM.docx (223 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 214 kb)

References

  1. Bartels, L. M. (2003). Democracy with attitudes. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berinsky, A. J. (2004). Can we talk? Self-presentation and the survey response. Political Psychology, 25(4), 643–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berinsky, A. J., & Lavine, H. (2012). Self-monitoring and political attitudes. In J. Aldrich & K. M. McGraw (Eds.), Interdisciplinary innovation and the American national election studies (pp. 27–45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.Google Scholar
  6. Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2013). Personality approaches to political behavior. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2016). Political chameleons: An exploration of conformity in political discussions. Political Behavior, 38, 817–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caverley, J. D., & Krupnikov, Y. (2017). Aiming at doves: Experimental evidence of military images’ political effects. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(7), 1482–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chong, D. (2000). Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciuk, D. J. (2017). Democratic values? A racial group-based analysis of core political values, partisanship, and ideology. Political Behavior, 39, 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. The Adapted Mind, 163, 163–228.Google Scholar
  16. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
  17. Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, G., & Neundorf, A. (2018). Core political values and the long-term shaping of partisanship in the British electorate. British Journal of Political Science, 1, 4.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000339.Google Scholar
  19. Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, S. (2013). Political ideology. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, S., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 658–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goffman, E. (1967). “On face-work, interaction ritual (pp. 5–45). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  25. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goren, P., Federico, C. M., & Kittilson, M. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huckfeldt, R. (1983). The social context of political change: Durability, volatility, and social influence. American Political Science Review, 77(4), 929–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huckfeldt, R., Mondak, J. J., Hayes, M., Pietryka, M. T., & Reilly, J. (2013). Networks, interdependence, and social influence in politics. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? A hierarchical model. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1099–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacoby, W. G. (2006). Value choices and American public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 706–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacoby, W. G. (2014). Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion. The American Political Science Review, 108(4), 754–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kam, C. D., & Trussler, M. J. (2017). At the nexus of experimental and observational research: Theory, specification, and analysis of experiments with heterogeneous treatment effects. Political Behavior, 39(4), 789–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Klar, S. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. Political Science Quarterly, 132(1), 191–193.Google Scholar
  40. Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. (2018). Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(6), 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knutsen, O. (1995). Party choice. In J. W. Van Deth & E. Scarbrough (Eds.), The impact of values (pp. 460–491). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kuklinski, J. H. (2001). Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuran, T. (1997). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lavine, H., & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processes and the functional matching effect in persuasion: The mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(6), 580–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levendusky, M. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCann, J. A. (1997). Electoral choices and core value change: The 1992 presidential campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meyer, G. W. (1994). Social information processing and social networks: A test of social influence mechanisms. Human Relations, 47(9), 1013–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mutz, D. C. (1992). Impersonal influence: Effects of representations of public opinion on political attitudes. Political Behavior, 14(2), 89–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nelson, T. E., & Garst, J. (2005). Values-based political messages and persuasion: Relationships among speaker, recipient, and evoked values. Political Psychology, 26(4), 489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peffley, M., Knigge, P., & Hurwitz, J. (2001). A multiple values model of political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rothschild, J. E., Howat, A. J., Shafranek, R. M., & Busby, E. C. (2018). Pigeonholing partisans: Stereotypes of party supporters and partisan polarization. Political Behavior, 1, 2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9457-5.Google Scholar
  56. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic Personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal study. Political Psychology, 31, 421–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Seligman, C., & Katz, A. N. (1996). The dynamics of value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  59. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  60. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion (pp. 133–165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision-making (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  62. Terkildsen, N. (1993). When white voters evaluate black candidates: The processing implications of candidate skin color, prejudice, and self-monitoring. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1032–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Valentino, N. A., & Nardis, Y. (2013). Political communication: Form and consequence of the information environment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Weber, C. R., Lavine, H., Huddy, L., & Federico, C. M. (2014). Placing racial stereotypes in context: Social desirability and the politics of racial hostility. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options