Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 817–859 | Cite as

Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions

Original Paper

Abstract

Individuals do not always express their private political opinions in front of others who disagree. Neither political scientists nor psychologists have been able to firmly establish why this behavior occurs. Previous research has explored, at length, social influence on political attitudes and persuasion. However, the concept of conformity does not involve attitude change or persuasion; it more accurately involves self-censoring to match a socially desirable norm. In an effort to improve our understanding of this behavior, we conduct two experiments to investigate perceptions and behavioral responses to contentious political interactions. Study 1 asked participants to predict how a hypothetical character would respond to a variety of political interactions among coworkers. In Study 2, participants discussed political issues with confederates who were scripted to disagree with them. The studies reveal that individuals are uncomfortable around political interactions in which they hold an opinion counter to the group. Participants both expected a hypothetical character to conform in Study 1 and actually conformed themselves in the lab session in Study 2.

Keywords

Conformity Discussion Contention Politics Opinions 

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9335_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 21 KB)

References

  1. Abramowitz, Alan I. (2006). Comment on disconnected: The political class versus the people. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (pp. 72–84). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, & American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. elections. Journal of Politics, 60(3), 634–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. (2005). Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 3(2), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., Mayer, A. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2013). Expertise and bias in political communication networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2010). Communication, influence, and informational asymmetries among voters. Political Psychology, 31(5), 763–787. Presented at the Conference on Social Dilemmas, sponsored by the Research Group for Experimental Social Science at Florida State University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2014). Experts, activists, and democratic politics: Are electorates self-educating? Cambridge studies in public opinion and political psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ansolabehere, S., & Schaffner, B. Does survey mode still matter? Political Analysis (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  10. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bafumi, J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2009). A new partisan voter. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barry, H., Child, L., & Bacon, M. (1959). Relation of child training to subsistence economy. American Anthropology, 61, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bennett, S. E., Flickinger, R. S., & Rhine, S. L. (2000). Political Talk over here, over there, over time. British Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blanton, H., & Christie, C. (2003). Deviance regulation: A theory of identity and action. Review of General Psychology, 7, 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bond, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brewer, M. B., & Roccas, S. (2001). Individual, self, relational self, collective self. Psychology Press. Chapter Individual Values, Social Identity, and Optimal Distinctiveness, pp. 219–37.Google Scholar
  20. Burnett, C. (2012). Artificial intelligence: Comparing survey responses for online and offline samples. In APSA 2012 annual meeting paper.Google Scholar
  21. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Peterson: Row.Google Scholar
  22. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Caro, F. G., Ho, T., McFadden, D., Gottlieb, A. S., Yee, Christine, Chan, Taizan, et al. (2012). Using the internet to administer more realistic vignette experiments. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1242–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  27. Cialdini, R. B., Alan Levy, C., Herman, P., & Evenbeck, S. (1973). Attitudinal politics: The strategy of moderation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Reviews Psychology, 55, 591–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Crabtree, C., Fariss, C. J., & Kern, H. L. (2015). Truth replaced by silence: A field experiment on private censorship in Russia. Available at SSRN 2708274.Google Scholar
  31. Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. The American Psychologist, 10(5), 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56, 76–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  34. Druckman, J., & Nelson, K. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dryzek, J. S. (1994). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York, NY: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  39. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Giuseffi, K. E., Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2013). Social anxiousness and political participation. Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  42. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B, Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24(3), 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haidt, J. (2014). Your personality makes your politics. Time Magazine. http://science.time.com/2014/01/09/your-personality-makes-your-politics/.
  46. Haidt, J., & Wilson, C. (2014). Can TIME predict your politics? See how your preferences in dogs, Internet browsers, and 10 other items predict your partisan leanings. TIME Magazine. http://time.com/510/can-time-predict-your-politics/.
  47. Haidt, J., & Hetherington, M. J. (2012). Look how far we’ve come apart. Campaign Stops, September 17. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/look-how-far-weve-come-apart/
  48. Hayes, A. F. (2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: On the sprial of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication, 57, 785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), 298–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in american politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hibbing, J. R., Ritchie, M., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and political discussion. Political Behavior, 33(4), 601–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hlavac, M. (2015). Stargazer: Well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables. R package version 5.2 http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer.
  54. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Karpowitz, C. F., & Mendelberg, T. (2007). Groups and deliberation. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), 645–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T., & Shaker, L. (2012). Gender inequality in deliberative participation. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  62. Khan, R., Misra, K., & Singh, V. (2013). Ideology and brand consumption. Psychological Science, 24(3), 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kim, H. S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). The dating preferences of liberals and conservatives. Political Behavior, 120.Google Scholar
  65. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: who gets what, when, how. Peter Smith .Google Scholar
  66. Lasswell, H. D. (1941). Democracy through public opinion. George Banta Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  67. Latane, B. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Levitan, L. C., & Verhulst, B. (2015). Conformity in groups: The effects of others views on expressed attitudes and attitude change. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
  71. Levitan, L., & Visser, P. (2009). Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1057–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Levy, M., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1983). Identifying and addressing retail salespeople’s ethical problems: A method and application. Journal of Retailing, 59(1), 46–66.Google Scholar
  73. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Mason, L. (2013). The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mason, L. (2015). ’I disrespectfully agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mondak, J. J. (2012). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (1998). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion-our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  81. Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R.R. (2001). Societal transition: Toward a dynamical model of social change. The Practice of Social Influence in Multiple Cultures, 151–71.Google Scholar
  82. Pool, G. J., Wod, W., & Leck, K. (1998). The self-esteem motive in social influence: Agreement with valued majorities and disagreement with derogated minorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. Touchstone Books by Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  84. Ryan, J. B. (2010). The effects of network expertise and biases on vote choice. Political Communication, 27, 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ryan, J. B. (2011). Social networks as a shortcut to correct voting. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 752–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Multiple Scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Settle, J. E., Bond, R., & Levitt, J. (2011). The social origins of adult political behavior. American Politics Research, 39(2), 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Suhay, E. (2015). Explaining group influence: The role of identity and emotion in political conformity and polarization. Political Behavior, 37, 221–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.) Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 37, pp. 41–133).Google Scholar
  92. Ulbig, S. G., & Funk, C. (1999). Conflict avoidance and political participation. Political Behavior, 21(3), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weber, J. (1992). Scenarios in business ethics research: Review, critical assessment, and recommendations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilson, G. D. (1973). Conservatism and art preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 286–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Young, A. (2016). Channelling fisher: Randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results. Working Paper as of February 2016.Google Scholar
  96. Zuckerman, A. S. (2005). The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior. Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaLa Jolla USA
  2. 2.Government DepartmentCollege of William & MaryWilliamsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations