Psychologists at New York University say they've found the answer to why people with right wing political views are happier than left-leaning liberals (as previously indicated by survey research). In short, conservatives are less upset by inequality because they believe people generally get what they deserve in life.
Jaime Napier and John Jost gave questionnaires to over a thousand Americans and found that conservatives were happier than liberals even after controlling for the possible influence of demographic differences, such as in wealth and religiosity. Crucially, they found that at least some of the difference in happiness was explained by the conservatives being less bothered by inequality.
A second study found a similar pattern in nine other countries, including New Zealand, Norway and Spain. This time the greater happiness of conservatives was associated with their meritocratic beliefs - for example, their belief that, in the long run, hard work usually brings a better life.
A final study showed that liberals in America have grown less happy as inequality has risen, whereas the happiness of conservatives has remained unaffected. This appears to confirm Napier and Jost's contention that right wing political beliefs can guard against the potentially upsetting effects of inequality.
The pair concluded that beliefs can have a protective effect on happiness in other walks of life too. "Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labour" they said.
_________________________________
Napier, J.L., Jost, J.T. (2008). Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?. Psychological Science, 19(6), 565-572. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Also on the Digest:
Conservatives are less creative than liberals
People sensitive to disgust are more likely to hold right-wing views
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Friday, 8 August 2008
Monday, 5 November 2007
You're similar to me, so have my vote
Research into romantic attraction has shown that we're often drawn to people who are similar to ourselves. Now Gian Caprara and colleagues have shown the same principle applies to our voting habits.Over 1,500 Italian voters rated their own personality and the personality of the then President Silvio Berlusconi or his more left-wing rival Romano Prodi, using 25 adjectives that map onto what psychologists call the 'Big Five' personality traits.
Participants who had previously voted for Berlusconi tended to rate both themselves and him as being high in energy/extraversion, whereas centre-left Prodi voters, although they too saw Berlusconi as energetic and outgoing, did not rate themselves in this way. Centre-left voters, however, saw both themselves and Prodi as being high in friendliness.
In a second study, 6,094 American voters rated their own personality and the personality of John Kerry and George W Bush. This time Kerry was unanimously viewed as scoring high in openness - a trait that Kerry voters, but not Bush voters, also saw in themselves. Bush was seen by most as loyal and sincere, attributes that his voters also saw in themselves.
So in both Italy and America there was general agreement among voters in the personality traits of the political candidates. Crucially, it appeared that if a voter considered that they shared a candidate's traits, then they tended to vote for them.
The trouble so far is that the direction of causality has not been determined. People could be voting for politicians who they see as being like themselves, or they could be voting for a given politician and only afterwards forming the perception that that person is just like themselves. To test this, 120 American voters rated their own character and that of Bush and Kerry one week prior to the November 2004 Presidential election. People who saw themselves as similar to Kerry and dissimilar to Bush tended to go on to vote for Kerry (the reverse also held, with people who saw themselves as similar to Bush going on to vote for him).
“These findings...further attest to the role that personal characteristics of both voters and candidates play in orienting political preference,” the researchers said.
__________________________________
Caprara, G.V, Vecchione, M., Barbaranelli, C. & Fraley, R.C. (2007). When likeness goes with liking: The case of political preference. Political Psychology, 28, 609-632.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
People sensitive to disgust are more likely to hold right-wing views
People who are sensitive to interpersonal disgust – for example, they dislike sitting on a bus seat left warm by a stranger – are more likely to hold right-wing attitudes and to be racist.That's according to Gordon Hodson and Kimberly Costello, who say that in the same way that core disgust guards the bodily boundary, interpersonal disgust may serve to guard cultural boundaries, by averting us from people who are not members of our group, and drawing us to those who are.
Hodson and Costello asked 103 English Canadian students questions about their disgust sensitivity, their political orientations, their fear of disease and their attitudes to immigrants and other marginalised groups like foreigners, homosexuals, drug addicts and the poor.
High sensitivity to interpersonal disgust was associated with right-wing authoritarian beliefs, a less-than-human perception of immigrants and negative attitudes to marginalised groups such as the poor. It was also associated with more positive attitudes towards other English Canadians.
Other types of disgust sensitivity, such as aversion to eating monkey meat (core disgust) to touching dead bodies (death-related disgust) and to people watching pornography involving animals (sex-related disgust) were correlated with interpersonal disgust, but did not themselves predict racist or prejudice attitudes once levels of interpersonal disgust were taken into account.
Interpersonal disgust sensitivity – not wanting to wear clean second hand clothes is another example - continued to predict racist attitudes even after fear of disease was taken into account. Hodson and Costello said such sensitivity may “reflect powerful symbolic cultural forces that socialise withdrawal strategies to protect the self from potentially offensive objects, including social groups.”
Hodson told the Digest his lab are testing desensitisation procedures in the hope of reducing prejudice: “If disgust sensitive people are more prejudiced then efforts to reduce disgust sensitivity through systematic desensitisation and related procedures (i.e. presenting participants with basic disgusting stimuli and intergroup disgust stimuli under controlled settings paired with relaxation) should help to reduce prejudice.”
___________________________________
Hodson, G. & Costello, K. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanisation as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691-698.
Link to related Nature feature article. (Subscription required).
Link to related article in The Psychologist magazine. (Open Access).
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Image credit: Credit: Wellcome Library, London. An expression of disgust. 1872 From: The expression of the emotions in man and animals / By: Charles Darwin Published: J. Murray,London : 1872.
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
Conservatives are less creative than liberals
People who hold conservative views tend to lack creativity relative to more liberal-minded people, according to a new psychology study.Stephen Dollinger established the conservatism of 422 university students by asking them whether they favoured such things as legalised abortion, gay rights and the immigration of foreigners.
The students demonstrated their creativity by completing a half-finished drawing in any way they liked, and by taking 20 photos on the theme “who are you?” - their efforts were then rated by judges. The students also indicated how often they engaged in various creative activities, such as writing poetry.
The students with more conservative views tended to be judged less creative based on their performance on the drawing and photography task, and their record of creative activities. This remained true even when their scores on a vocab test and a personality measure of openness to experience were taken into account.
The content of the students' photos gave some insight into their differing creativity. The 15 most conservative students depicted religious and family values, for example with photos of the bible. The 9 least conservative students, by contrast, tended to use unconventional ways to illustrate their lives. One student photographed a car parking over the line, to portray his disdain for rules.
The findings build on earlier work showing that people with conservative attitudes tend to favour simple representational paintings over more abstract art.
Professor Dollinger surmised: “Conservatives could be less creative than liberals because of greater threat-induced anxiety (e.g. finding the ambiguity of creative tasks threatening), their greater inclination to follow convention, and/or their devaluing of imagination.”
__________________________________
Dollinger, S.J. (2007). Creativity and conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1025-1035.
Link to New Scientist special issue on creativity
Link to Scientific American Mind special on creativity.
Link to free article from The Psychologist archive on creativity and innovation at work.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Image Credit: Wellcome Library, London. The Duke of Wellington conducts an orchestra comprising of conservative government ministers. Coloured lithograph by H.B. (John Doyle), 1838.
Friday, 24 March 2006
Born to lead
"From the Archives", first published in the Digest 27.10.03.An unusually high proportion of politicians are first borns – that is, their parents’ first child. Is this because the first born in a family benefits from the undivided attention of their parents’ resources and expectations? Or is it because the first born develops leadership skills through dealing with their younger siblings?
Rudy Andeweg and Steef Van Den Berg (Leiden University, Holland) questioned 1,200 Dutch individuals due to take office in local or national government. To test the parental vs. sibling theories, they took note of how many politicians were ‘only children’ (without any brothers or sisters) and how many were ‘middle-order children’. 'Only children' would have enjoyed the benefits of their parents’ undivided attention but wouldn't have had any younger siblings to boss around. Middle-order children, by contrast, would have missed out on parental preference, but would have been able to command their younger siblings.
As expected, relative to the general population, they found a greater proportion of politicians were first borns (36 per cent vs. 26 per cent) and fewer were last borns (19 per cent vs. 25 per cent). In support of the parental explanation, they found a disproportionate number of the politicians were only children. Middle-order children, by contrast, were not over-represented among the politicians – undermining the importance of the sibling explanation.
__________________________________________
Andeweg, R.B. & Van Den Berg, S.B. (2003). Linking birth order to political leadership: the impact of parents of sibling interaction? Political Psychology, 24, 605-623.
Link to free full-text.
Link to birth order entry on wikipedia.
Note, Alfred Adler wrote a seminal paper on birth order effects in 1928. There’s also another trend among leaders not mentioned by the current study – of the 24 British Prime Ministers between 1809 and 1937, 15 lost one or more of their parents as children. And the pattern continues among modern day leaders: Bill Clinton’s father died before Bill was born, John Major’s father died just before his son’s nineteenth birthday (from Jeremy Paxman's book The Political Animal).
Friday, 6 May 2005
Political candidates - how do you choose yours?
How do we judge political candidates? By how closely their political views match our own, or by characteristics such as their integrity and conscientiousness?
Jeffery Mondak and Robert Huckfeldt at Florida State University and the University of California first showed that hundreds of students were able to decide whether they supported a fictional candidate just as quickly based on single-word descriptions such as "hardworking", and "trustworthy", as they were based on single-word descriptions of the candidates' political affiliation (e.g. Democrat vs. Republican). "Character is at least as accessible in candidate evaluation as are partisanship and ideology...perhaps slightly more so", the researchers said.
But what happens when information is available on a candidate's character and their political stance?
Mondak and Huckfeldt asked students to reveal their own political allegiances and then to evaluate fictional candidates based on information about some or all of the following information: their party, their own political slant within that party (e.g. left or right wing), and their character.
Contrary to their expectations, the researchers found that character information is not something we fall back on when we are lacking information about a candidate's politics. Rather, information on character plays a greater role when we also know, for example, that a candidate shares our own political views. "When character cues are provided, it is the information rich who get richer", the researchers said. "Competence and integrity matter the most for those respondents who are best positioned to evaluate candidates without taking character information into account".
__________________________________
Mondak, J.J. & Huckfeldt, R. (2005). The accessibility and utility of candidate character in electoral decision making. Electoral Studies, in press.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Jeffery Mondak and Robert Huckfeldt at Florida State University and the University of California first showed that hundreds of students were able to decide whether they supported a fictional candidate just as quickly based on single-word descriptions such as "hardworking", and "trustworthy", as they were based on single-word descriptions of the candidates' political affiliation (e.g. Democrat vs. Republican). "Character is at least as accessible in candidate evaluation as are partisanship and ideology...perhaps slightly more so", the researchers said.
But what happens when information is available on a candidate's character and their political stance?
Mondak and Huckfeldt asked students to reveal their own political allegiances and then to evaluate fictional candidates based on information about some or all of the following information: their party, their own political slant within that party (e.g. left or right wing), and their character.
Contrary to their expectations, the researchers found that character information is not something we fall back on when we are lacking information about a candidate's politics. Rather, information on character plays a greater role when we also know, for example, that a candidate shares our own political views. "When character cues are provided, it is the information rich who get richer", the researchers said. "Competence and integrity matter the most for those respondents who are best positioned to evaluate candidates without taking character information into account".
__________________________________
Mondak, J.J. & Huckfeldt, R. (2005). The accessibility and utility of candidate character in electoral decision making. Electoral Studies, in press.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
'Informed' people more likely to vote
We're finding it harder than ever to drag ourselves to the polling station. Just 59 per cent of us bothered in the 2001 general election, compared with levels near 80 per cent postwar. Now a study from Copenhagen suggests a key factor affecting our decision to vote is whether we've formed a political opinion based on our own experiences.
In 1996, Copenhagen was divided into 15 districts, and in just four of these, local administration was introduced for a trial period, responsible for things like primary schools and care for the elderly. Four years' later, all the city's residents voted on whether to spread the local administration system city-wide, or to scrap it.
Afterwards, researchers surveyed 2,026 people across the city on whether they had voted, and crucially, on what they thought of the city's 'decentralised administration' trial. If they said it went well, okay, or bad, they were classified as 'informed', whereas those with no opinion were classified as 'uninformed'.
David Lassen at the University of Copenhagen found that regardless of their interest in politics per se, more people living in the four city districts that trialled the local administration voted, and this was because more of them were 'informed' - that is they had an opinion on the issue.
This is an important finding because past research showing better informed people are more likely to vote has been undermined by the possibility that some other factor, for example wealth, affects both how informed a person is and their propensity to vote. In this study, by contrast, people were more informed because of where they lived - not because they were rich or because of some other personal characteristic - and being informed in this way was shown to increase the likelihood they would vote, regardless of their wealth, education or even how interested they were in politics.
_________________________________
Lassen, D.D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 103-118.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
In 1996, Copenhagen was divided into 15 districts, and in just four of these, local administration was introduced for a trial period, responsible for things like primary schools and care for the elderly. Four years' later, all the city's residents voted on whether to spread the local administration system city-wide, or to scrap it.
Afterwards, researchers surveyed 2,026 people across the city on whether they had voted, and crucially, on what they thought of the city's 'decentralised administration' trial. If they said it went well, okay, or bad, they were classified as 'informed', whereas those with no opinion were classified as 'uninformed'.
David Lassen at the University of Copenhagen found that regardless of their interest in politics per se, more people living in the four city districts that trialled the local administration voted, and this was because more of them were 'informed' - that is they had an opinion on the issue.
This is an important finding because past research showing better informed people are more likely to vote has been undermined by the possibility that some other factor, for example wealth, affects both how informed a person is and their propensity to vote. In this study, by contrast, people were more informed because of where they lived - not because they were rich or because of some other personal characteristic - and being informed in this way was shown to increase the likelihood they would vote, regardless of their wealth, education or even how interested they were in politics.
_________________________________
Lassen, D.D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 103-118.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Rocking the vote
Just 39 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds voted at the last general election, down from 68 per cent at the election before that in 1997. Clearly young people are feeling disengaged from politics. A new American study offers hope that youth-targeted initiatives can help reverse this trend.
Mitchell McKinney and Mary Banwart compared the political attitudes of a group of young people before and after they watched a televised political debate. In 2003, 181 students watched a youth-tailored 'Rock the vote' debate in which eight candidates to become the Democratic nominee for President answered questions from a youth audience and took questions by email and text message. Their reaction to that debate was compared to the experience of 149 other students who watched a standard televised debate in which journalists put questions to a panel of Democratic candidates.
McKinney and Banwart found that compared with the students who watched the standard debate, the students who watched the 'Rock the vote' debate expressed greater political trust, reported being less cynical and reported feeling the political candidates were more interested in them and their concerns.
Analysis of the debate transcripts revealed that during the 90 minutes of the standard debate, not a single reference was made to or about young citizens. In contrast, the youth-targeted debate involved frequent appeals directed at a youth audience. For example, Senator Edwards told the audience "You know they stereotype you...I'm here to tell you it is wrong, it is condescending...I'm going to reach out to you, to hear what you have to say". On the Iraq war, Senator Liberman said "I understand how it tears apart the generation that's in this room because most of the troops that are in Iraq today are from your generation".
The researchers concluded: "Our findings here suggest the 'Rock the Vote' debate was an effective youth engagement effort. We encourage debate sponsors and broadcasters to continue to develop such forums...".
________________________________
McKinney, M.S. & Banwart, M.C. (2005). Rocking the youth vote through debate: examining the effects of a citizen versus journalist controlled debate on civic engagement. Journalism Studies, 6, 153-163.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Mitchell McKinney and Mary Banwart compared the political attitudes of a group of young people before and after they watched a televised political debate. In 2003, 181 students watched a youth-tailored 'Rock the vote' debate in which eight candidates to become the Democratic nominee for President answered questions from a youth audience and took questions by email and text message. Their reaction to that debate was compared to the experience of 149 other students who watched a standard televised debate in which journalists put questions to a panel of Democratic candidates.
McKinney and Banwart found that compared with the students who watched the standard debate, the students who watched the 'Rock the vote' debate expressed greater political trust, reported being less cynical and reported feeling the political candidates were more interested in them and their concerns.
Analysis of the debate transcripts revealed that during the 90 minutes of the standard debate, not a single reference was made to or about young citizens. In contrast, the youth-targeted debate involved frequent appeals directed at a youth audience. For example, Senator Edwards told the audience "You know they stereotype you...I'm here to tell you it is wrong, it is condescending...I'm going to reach out to you, to hear what you have to say". On the Iraq war, Senator Liberman said "I understand how it tears apart the generation that's in this room because most of the troops that are in Iraq today are from your generation".
The researchers concluded: "Our findings here suggest the 'Rock the Vote' debate was an effective youth engagement effort. We encourage debate sponsors and broadcasters to continue to develop such forums...".
________________________________
McKinney, M.S. & Banwart, M.C. (2005). Rocking the youth vote through debate: examining the effects of a citizen versus journalist controlled debate on civic engagement. Journalism Studies, 6, 153-163.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Political distrust - the lesson from Canada
"This election is all about trust" Conservative leader Michael Howard said at a recent press conference. He presumably thinks trust is a vote-winning issue for the Conservatives, but just how does political distrust affect the way people vote? Some insight comes from a study by Eric Belanger and Richard Nadeau that used data from the 1984, 1988 and 1993 Canadian elections - a period in which people's trust in politics dropped steadily.
Before each election, participants indicated their trust by agreeing, or not, with statements like "We can trust the government in Ottawa to do what is right" and "People running the government are a little crooked".
Results from the '84 and '88 elections provide good news for the Lib Dems here in the UK. Canadians who were distrustful were more likely to vote for Canada's third party - the New Democratic Party - at the expense of the two main parties. "...third parties can be thought of as channels used by voters to voice popular disenchantment with representative government and 'politics as usual'", the researchers said.
It also makes a difference whether a party exploits the trust issue as the Conservatives are doing in the current UK election. In the '93 Canadian election, two new parties entered the fray, one of which made trust a central campaign issue - and in that election it was these newer parties who benefited most from a voter's political distrust. "...parties' choice of campaign strategies and rhetoric are important" the researchers said.
What about voter apathy? Belanger and Nadeau estimated that if trust hadn't fallen from 1984 onwards, then turn out would only have been 1-2 per cent higher. And each election would also have seen the same winning party. "Declining levels of trust affected the electoral participation", the researchers said "but in a less dramatic way than one would expect".
___________________________________
Belanger, E. & Nadeau, R. (2005). Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The Canadian case. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 121-146.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Before each election, participants indicated their trust by agreeing, or not, with statements like "We can trust the government in Ottawa to do what is right" and "People running the government are a little crooked".
Results from the '84 and '88 elections provide good news for the Lib Dems here in the UK. Canadians who were distrustful were more likely to vote for Canada's third party - the New Democratic Party - at the expense of the two main parties. "...third parties can be thought of as channels used by voters to voice popular disenchantment with representative government and 'politics as usual'", the researchers said.
It also makes a difference whether a party exploits the trust issue as the Conservatives are doing in the current UK election. In the '93 Canadian election, two new parties entered the fray, one of which made trust a central campaign issue - and in that election it was these newer parties who benefited most from a voter's political distrust. "...parties' choice of campaign strategies and rhetoric are important" the researchers said.
What about voter apathy? Belanger and Nadeau estimated that if trust hadn't fallen from 1984 onwards, then turn out would only have been 1-2 per cent higher. And each election would also have seen the same winning party. "Declining levels of trust affected the electoral participation", the researchers said "but in a less dramatic way than one would expect".
___________________________________
Belanger, E. & Nadeau, R. (2005). Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The Canadian case. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 121-146.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Wednesday, 4 May 2005
It's not the economy, actually
"It's the economy, stupid", was Bill Clinton's campaign mantra back in the nineties. Well, no it's not actually. At least not according to a new analysis of British voting behaviour in the 1997 and 2001 general elections.
As part of the British Household Panel Study, over three thousand people provided annual information from 1992 to 2001, on their current financial situation and expectations, as well as stating who they voted for in the '92, '97 and 2001 elections.
If we choose who to vote for based on economics, then you'd think that previously non-Tory voters who were financially comfortable in 1997 would reward the Conservative government (who had been in power) by voting for them. But Ron Johnston and his colleagues at Bristol University found very few examples of this happening. Similarly in 2001 (when Labour returned to power), examples were rare of previously non-Labour voters switching their allegiance to Labour because of their agreeable financial situation. In fact, an opposite pattern was apparent - those people who reported being in dire financial circumstances were twice as likely as the financially comfortable to switch their vote to Labour!
So according to these findings, either we don't base our choice of vote on economics, or if we do, then we do it selflessly, based on our perception of the country's economy as a whole rather than on our own circumstances.
An alternative possibility here is that our political allegiance colours how we judge our financial situation. Johnston found some evidence for this. People who voted Tory in '92 were more likely to report their finances were okay at the '97 election, as if viewing the economy through blue-tinted spectacles.
__________________________________
Johnston, R., Sarker, R., Jones, K., Bolster, A., Propper, C. & Burgess, S. (2005). Egocentric economic voting and changes in party choice: Great Britain 1992-2001. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15, 129-144.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
As part of the British Household Panel Study, over three thousand people provided annual information from 1992 to 2001, on their current financial situation and expectations, as well as stating who they voted for in the '92, '97 and 2001 elections.
If we choose who to vote for based on economics, then you'd think that previously non-Tory voters who were financially comfortable in 1997 would reward the Conservative government (who had been in power) by voting for them. But Ron Johnston and his colleagues at Bristol University found very few examples of this happening. Similarly in 2001 (when Labour returned to power), examples were rare of previously non-Labour voters switching their allegiance to Labour because of their agreeable financial situation. In fact, an opposite pattern was apparent - those people who reported being in dire financial circumstances were twice as likely as the financially comfortable to switch their vote to Labour!
So according to these findings, either we don't base our choice of vote on economics, or if we do, then we do it selflessly, based on our perception of the country's economy as a whole rather than on our own circumstances.
An alternative possibility here is that our political allegiance colours how we judge our financial situation. Johnston found some evidence for this. People who voted Tory in '92 were more likely to report their finances were okay at the '97 election, as if viewing the economy through blue-tinted spectacles.
__________________________________
Johnston, R., Sarker, R., Jones, K., Bolster, A., Propper, C. & Burgess, S. (2005). Egocentric economic voting and changes in party choice: Great Britain 1992-2001. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15, 129-144.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Tuesday, 3 May 2005
Why Minghella got it right
It may have attracted derisory sniggers from the media, but Anthony Minghella's short 'romantic film' starring Messrs. Blair and Brown was probably worth it - a new study shows that political adverts accompanied by moody music and lighting really are more effective.
Against the backdrop of the 1998 election for the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, Ted Brader at the University of Michigan recruited 286 volunteers ostensibly to participate in research into TV news. Participants watched a real 30-minute news programme into which Brader had embedded a carefully-designed political broadcast, either in favour or against one of the opposing candidates. Brader wanted to see whether adding moody music, lighting and images to an advert would have some extra effect on viewers even if the script were identical. So whereas some of his volunteers saw a positive advert with no music and set outside a local government building, others saw a version with uplifting music and colourful images of children playing. Similarly with the negative advert - some saw it with tense discordant music and black and white images of drug use, whereas others saw a neutral version.
Questioned afterwards, those participants who'd seen the positive advert with uplifting music reported being more interested in the election than those who'd seen the positive, unemotional version. They were also 29 per cent more likely to say they planned to vote, and were more likely to base their choice of candidate on their pre-existing preferences, rather than on topical issues.
The negative adverts - with or without emotive effects added - had no influence on people's stated intention to vote. But whereas the positive advert entrenched people's current beliefs, the addition of music and provocative images to the negative advert had the opposite effect, making people more likely to choose their candidate based on topical issues.
"Until now, we lacked hard evidence on whether emotions in general are an important part of political advertising.", Brader's report concludes, ".this study confirms what some observers long held on faith".
_________________________________
Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: how political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388-405.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Against the backdrop of the 1998 election for the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, Ted Brader at the University of Michigan recruited 286 volunteers ostensibly to participate in research into TV news. Participants watched a real 30-minute news programme into which Brader had embedded a carefully-designed political broadcast, either in favour or against one of the opposing candidates. Brader wanted to see whether adding moody music, lighting and images to an advert would have some extra effect on viewers even if the script were identical. So whereas some of his volunteers saw a positive advert with no music and set outside a local government building, others saw a version with uplifting music and colourful images of children playing. Similarly with the negative advert - some saw it with tense discordant music and black and white images of drug use, whereas others saw a neutral version.
Questioned afterwards, those participants who'd seen the positive advert with uplifting music reported being more interested in the election than those who'd seen the positive, unemotional version. They were also 29 per cent more likely to say they planned to vote, and were more likely to base their choice of candidate on their pre-existing preferences, rather than on topical issues.
The negative adverts - with or without emotive effects added - had no influence on people's stated intention to vote. But whereas the positive advert entrenched people's current beliefs, the addition of music and provocative images to the negative advert had the opposite effect, making people more likely to choose their candidate based on topical issues.
"Until now, we lacked hard evidence on whether emotions in general are an important part of political advertising.", Brader's report concludes, ".this study confirms what some observers long held on faith".
_________________________________
Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: how political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388-405.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Monday, 28 February 2005
If Bill Clinton were a woman...
From Profumo to Boris and now Ken, the politician's knack of hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons shows no sign of abating. Their political survival then depends on the public's reaction. So, as women gradually increase their presence in political life, Elizabeth Smith (Furman University, USA) and Ashleigh Powers (University of North Carolina) ask whether people are less forgiving of female misdemeanours.
Two hundred and forty participants (average age 30 years) read two fictional newspaper stories about politicians who were in trouble for some errant behaviour. To gauge their reaction, the participants then evaluated the politicians on things like their competence, likeability and honesty. Different versions of the newspaper stories were used - the sex of the politicians changed, as did their misdemeanour and their account of what they'd done.
Overall, people were no less forgiving of transgressions by female politicians. Female participants, however, were less forgiving of all the politicians than the men. Participants were most forgiving when a politician committed an act that ran counter to gender stereotypes (e.g. a female politician accepting bribes; a male politician having sex with a superior). "In other words", the authors said, "if Bill Clinton were a woman, he might actually have gotten off easier in public evaluations".
The participants were convinced least by excuses (e.g. "This egregious error was caused by an oversight by my staff") and were, in contrast, most forgiving when justifications were given (e.g. "As two consenting adults we feel that this relationship is not improper in any way").
The authors concluded: "Since women's willingness to run for office seems to be one of the last great hurdles to full political equality, our findings will hopefully act to encourage women in their political considerations".
_________________________________
Smith, E.S. and Powers, A.S. (2005). If Bill Clinton were a woman: the effectiveness of male and female politicians' account strategies following alleged transgressions. Political Psychology, 26, 115-133.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Two hundred and forty participants (average age 30 years) read two fictional newspaper stories about politicians who were in trouble for some errant behaviour. To gauge their reaction, the participants then evaluated the politicians on things like their competence, likeability and honesty. Different versions of the newspaper stories were used - the sex of the politicians changed, as did their misdemeanour and their account of what they'd done.
Overall, people were no less forgiving of transgressions by female politicians. Female participants, however, were less forgiving of all the politicians than the men. Participants were most forgiving when a politician committed an act that ran counter to gender stereotypes (e.g. a female politician accepting bribes; a male politician having sex with a superior). "In other words", the authors said, "if Bill Clinton were a woman, he might actually have gotten off easier in public evaluations".
The participants were convinced least by excuses (e.g. "This egregious error was caused by an oversight by my staff") and were, in contrast, most forgiving when justifications were given (e.g. "As two consenting adults we feel that this relationship is not improper in any way").
The authors concluded: "Since women's willingness to run for office seems to be one of the last great hurdles to full political equality, our findings will hopefully act to encourage women in their political considerations".
_________________________________
Smith, E.S. and Powers, A.S. (2005). If Bill Clinton were a woman: the effectiveness of male and female politicians' account strategies following alleged transgressions. Political Psychology, 26, 115-133.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.