In-Group Love Versus Out-Group Hate: Which Is More Important to Partisans and When?

Abstract

Recent evidence indicates that partisans discriminate against those from the opposing party. However, it is still unclear whether partisan out-group prejudice reveals a desire for out-group harm or in-group help. We investigate the conditions under which these tendencies arise. Using one observational survey and three survey experiments, we show that when given the chance to either harm the out-group or help the in-group, people tend to choose the latter. Yet while the tendency to help the in-group appears to be primary, we also show that under situations of symbolic threat to partisan identity, respondents shift gears and opt for harming the out-group as a strategy to defend the status of their political group identity. These results add to our understanding of how partisan identity and polarization works in non-elites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2–4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    This group of scholars explain polarization at this level as an artifact of extreme political activists that is erroneously discussed by the media as a problem in the electorate.

  2. 2.

    We note here that since Study 1 is observational, the results from this online convenience sample must be taken with a grain of salt, as the individual survey takes are non-representative of the American population.

  3. 3.

    Control variables can still reduce noise in experimental contexts (Gerber and Green 2012) and serve as robustness checks.

  4. 4.

    We note here at that in the normal circumstances of the Control condition, Democrats (M = .39, SE = .05) were more likely to select the out-party harm article than Republicans (M = .181, SE = .06) at z(33,73)  =  − 2.18, p = .02.

  5. 5.

    We also ran this model as a logistic regression in which the dependent variable is coded such that 1 = Chose Harm the Out-Party and 0 = Chose Help In-Party or Neither. Results can be seen in Table 9 of the Appendix. In this model, the threat condition produces a null result. We believe this is because harming the out-party is not a unique option from the combination of the other two options; all three are conceptually distinct and should be estimated with the multinomial logistic regression.

  6. 6.

    Interestingly, our findings are robust against partisanship strength. Greene (1999, 2002) has shown that the social component of partisanship increases for people who identify as Strong Democrats and Strong Republicans. People who fall into these categories should more profoundly internalize the threat. We report the interaction between the experimental condition and partisan strength for each of the three experimental studies in the Online Appendix Tables 2, 3 and 4. Surprisingly, we found no significant effects on the interaction term in any of the studies. This suggests that the threat’s effect on weak party identifiers is just as impactful as it is on strong party identifiers—at least in our samples.

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(02), 542–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brambilla, M., Rusconi, P., Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., Cherubini, P., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). You want to give a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62(8), 728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. CNN (2017). “Eric Trump: Democrats in Washington are not even people”. Retrieved Feb 19, 2019, from https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/eric-trump-hannity-democrats-obstruction/index.html.

  9. Conway, P. (2018). The core of morality is the moral self. In K. Gray, J. Graham, K. Gray, & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 149–164). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war?. Pearson Longman NY: The myth of a polarized America.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. A., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 556–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gallup (2013). Gridlock is top reason Americans are critical of congress. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from http://news.gallup.com/poll/163031/gridlock-top-reason-americans-critical-congress.aspx.

  13. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York, NY: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24(3), 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guess, A., Lyons, B., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers: Why selective exposure to like-mined political news is less prevalent than you think. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from Knight Foundation Technical Report: https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/133/original/Topos_KF_White-Paper_Nyhan_V1.pdf.

  19. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Huffington Post (2017). The deeply immoral values of today’s republican leaders. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-deeply-immoral-values-of-todays-republican-leaders_us_5a2eb9f7e4b04cb297c2aee5.

  22. Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39, 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Layman, G. C. (1999). “Culture Wars” in the American party system religious and cultural change among partisan activists since 1972. American Politics Quarterly, 27(1), 89–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. New York Times (2015). Americans view on money in politics. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/6-perceptions-of-elected-officials-and-the-role-of-money-in-politics/.

  31. Petrocik, J. R. (2009). Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 562–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pew (2015). Beyond distrust: How Americans view their government. Retrieved Nov 23, 2015, from http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/6-perceptions-of-elected-officials-and-the-role-of-money-in-politics/.

  33. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stonecash, J. M., Brewer, M. D., & Mariani, M. D. (2003). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Strohminger, N., & Nichols, S. (2014). The essential moral self. Cognition, 131(1), 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Täuber, S., & Zomeren, M. (2013). Outrage towards whom? Threats to moral group status impede striving to improve via out-group-directed outrage. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(2), 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tetlock, P. E., Kirstel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. The Guardian (2018). The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the republican party. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/dec/04/the-moral-and-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-the-republican-party.

  43. Time Magazine Online (2017). “Eric Trump says some of his dad’s critics are ‘Not even people’”. Retrieved Feb 19, 2019, from http://time.com/4809010/eric-trump-donald-sean-hannity/.

  44. Washington Post (2017). The GOP’s moral rot is the problem, not Donald Trump Jr. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/07/14/the-gops-moral-rot-is-the-problem-not-donald-trump-jr/?utm_term=.d8d640b8724e.

  45. Wojciszke, B. (2005). Morality and competence in person-and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 155–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karyn Amira.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of College of Charleston IRB Board (Protocol Number with final addendum number: IRB-2016-06-01-085424-a-2017-09-30-121409) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 118 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 189 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 8, 9 and Figs. 6, 7, 8.

Table 8 Sample characteristics for studies 1–4
Table 9 Study 3 and 4 results When DV is dichotomized
Fig. 6
figure4

Articles for respondent selection in all studies. Note that Republican identifiers see the opposite: an article praising Republicans for fixing gridlock and an article criticizing Democrats for a disproportionate number of financial scandals

Fig. 7
figure5

Study 2 and study 3 moral threat news clipping. Note that the word “Democrat” is replaced with “Republican” for the Republican survey path

Fig. 8
figure6

Study 4 personalized moral threat news clipping. Note that the word “Democrat” is replaced with the word “Republican” for the Republican survey path

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amira, K., Wright, J.C. & Goya-Tocchetto, D. In-Group Love Versus Out-Group Hate: Which Is More Important to Partisans and When?. Polit Behav (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09557-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Partisanship
  • Affective polarization
  • Symbolic threat
  • Moral threat
  • Survey experiment
  • Intergroup hostility