Advertisement

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

  • Karyn AmiraEmail author
  • Jennifer Cole Wright
  • Daniela Goya-Tocchetto
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Partisanship Affective polarization Symbolic threat Moral threat Survey experiment Intergroup hostility 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9557_MOESM1_ESM.docx (118 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 118 kb)
11109_2019_9557_MOESM2_ESM.docx (189 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 189 kb)

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(02), 542–555.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.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.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.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62(8), 728.Google Scholar
  7. Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183.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.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.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.Google Scholar
  17. Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24(3), 171–197.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar
  28. Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485–501.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.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.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.Google Scholar
  36. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366.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.Google Scholar
  40. Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.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.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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science DepartmentCollege of CharlestonCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentCollege of CharlestonCharlestonUSA
  3. 3.Management and OrganizationDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations