Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 221–251 | Cite as

Explaining Group Influence: The Role of Identity and Emotion in Political Conformity and Polarization

Original Paper

Abstract

Evidence has accumulated that people often conform to political norms. However, we know little about the mechanisms underlying political conformity. Whose norms are people likely to follow, and why? This article discusses two phenomena—social identity and “self-conscious” emotions—that are key to understanding when and why people follow the crowd. It argues that adherence to in-group norms is a critical basis of status among in-group peers. Conformity generates peer approval and leads to personal pride. Deviance generates disapproval and causes embarrassment or shame. These emotional reactions color an individual’s political perspectives, typically generating conformity. These same mechanisms can spur between-group polarization. In this case, differentiation from the norms of disliked out-groups results in peer approval and pride, and conformity to out-group norms disapproval and embarrassment or shame. This framework is supported by the results of two experiments that examine the influence of group opinion norms over economic and social aspects of citizens’ political ideologies. One exogenously varies the social identity of attitudinal majorities; the other primes the relevant emotions. In addition to contributing to the study of political conformity and polarization, this article adds to our growing understanding of the relevance of social identity and emotion to political life.

Keywords

Conformity Polarization Social identity Emotion Norms Political opinion 

References

  1. Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the lifespan: The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men: Research in human relations. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
  4. Banaji, M. R., & Heiphetz, L. (2010). Attitudes. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. L. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, P. A. (2002). Encouraging political defection: The role of personal discussion networks in partisan desertions to the opposition party and Perot votes in 1992. Political Behavior, 24(4), 309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgment, decision making and reasoning. Cognition and Emotion, 24(4), 561–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolsen, T. (2013). A light bulb goes on: Norms, rhetoric, and actions for the public good. Political Behavior, 35, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Hal, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter (Unabridged ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chong, D. (2000). Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, R. D., & Maass, A. (1988). The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Antonio, W. V. (2007). American Catholics today: New realities of their faith and their Church. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. (2008). General social surveys, 1972–2008: Cumulative codebook. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
  18. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1965). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. In H. Proshansky & B. Seidenberg (Eds.), Basic studies in social psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, C. P. (2008). The political influence of churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  21. Elster, J. (1999). Alchemies of the mind: Rationality and the emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, S. (1999). Economic values and inequality. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3). doi:10.1111/pops.12055.
  24. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gadarian, S. K. (2010). The politics of threat: How terrorism news shapes foreign policy attitudes. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and vote turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2010). An experiment testing the relative effectiveness of encouraging voter participation by inducing feelings of pride or shame. Political Behavior, 32, 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haslam, S. A., Ellemers, N., Reicher, S. D., Reynolds, K. J., & Schmitt, M. T. (2010). The social identity perspective today: An overview of its defining ideas. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity: Key readings. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81, 1197–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, M. MacKuen, & A. N. Crigler (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Imai, K., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2012). Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 176(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lazer, D. (2011). Networks in political science: Back to the future. PS. Political Science & Politics, 44(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leege, D. C., Wald, K. D., Krueger, B. S., & Mueller, P. D. (2002). The politics of cultural differences: Social change and voter mobilization strategies in the post-New Deal period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2009). Intergroup emotions theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  43. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. S. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McClurg, S. D. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McNair, M. L., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). Profile of mood states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
  47. Milgram, S. (1992). The individual in a social world: Essays and experiments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  48. Miller, R. S. (2007). Is embarrassment a blessing or a curse? In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  49. Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: From nature to the lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moskalenko, S., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (2006). Group identification under conditions of threat: College students’ attachment to country, family, ethnicity, religion, and university before and after September 11, 2001. Political Psychology, 27(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nadeau, R., Cloutier, E., & Guay, J.-H. (1993). New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process. International Political Science Review, 14(2), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nelson, T. E., Gwiasda, G., & Lyons, J. (2011). Vilification and values. Political Psychology, 32(5), 813–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nickerson, D. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. The American Political Science Review, 102(1), 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Noelle-Neuman, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion—our social skin (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Panagopoulos, C. (2010). Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing behavior. Political Behavior, 32, 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Panksepp, J. (1994). The basics of basic emotions. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pew Research Center. (2008). A portrait of American Catholics on the eve of Pope Benedict’s visit. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Putnam, R., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  60. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  61. Scheff, T. (1988). Shame and conformity: The deference-emotion system. American Sociological Review, 53, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sears, D. O., & Levy, S. (2003). Childhood and adult political development. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sherif, M. ([1936] 1966). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  64. Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Small, D. A., & Lerner, J. S. (2005). Emotional policy: Personal sadness and anger shape judgments about a welfare case. Political Psychology, 29, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sokhey, A. E., & Djupe, P. A. (2011). Interpersonal networks and democratic politics. PS. Political Science & Politics, 44(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  68. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity, and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who counts as an American? The boundaries of national identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  73. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Turner, J. C., with Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  75. Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wald, K. D., Owen, D. E., & Hill, S. S., Jr. (1988). Churches as political communities. The American Political Science Review, 82, 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walsh, K. C. (2003). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wood, W., Pool, G. J., Leck, K., & Purvis, D. (1996). Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: The normative impact of majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1181–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Government and LawLafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations