PSYC3002 - Lecture 10 - Wattle.pdf

The Social Psychology of Group Processes & Social Change PSYC3002 Lecture 10: Polarisation and Conflict Dr Charlie Crimston [email protected] THE STORY SO FAR… ▪ Intergroup & intragroup theories ▪ The social identity approach ▪ Ingroup bias & misinformation ▪ Deviance & dissent ▪ Stereoty...

The Social Psychology of Group Processes & Social Change PSYC3002 Lecture 10: Polarisation and Conflict Dr Charlie Crimston [email protected] THE STORY SO FAR… ▪ Intergroup & intragroup theories ▪ The social identity approach ▪ Ingroup bias & misinformation ▪ Deviance & dissent ▪ Stereotypes, prejudice & discrimination ▪ Extreme group norms TODAY… ▪ What is polarisation? ▪ Theory & basics ▪ Various forms of polarisation ▪ Consequences of polarisation ▪ Morally charged polarisation ▪ Solutions? ▪ The social psychology of war and conflict ▪ Functions of war? ▪ Propaganda IS AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY GETTING MORE POLARISED OVER TIME? WHAT DO WE MEAN BY POLARISATION? ▪ a social psychological phenomenon whereby people adopt more extreme positions after discussion = polarisation ▪ the division of a society into opposing groups = polarisation “GROUP” VS “POLITICAL” POLARISATION WHAT IS POLARISATION? Polarisation of racial attitudes (Myers & Bishop, 1970) Method Participants’ racial prejudice measured Identified participants with: ◦ High prejudice ◦ Low prejudice Participants participated in group discussion with like-minded others Participants’ racial prejudice measured again after discussion WHAT IS POLARISATION? Polarisation of racial attitudes (Myers & Bishop, 1970) Results Participants with low prejudice displayed lower prejudice after discussion Low Prejudice 4 Group polarisation effect emerged for both groups 3 2 1 Prejudice Participants with high prejudice displayed higher prejudice after discussion High Prejudice 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Before Discussion After Discussion GROUP POLARISATION EXPLANATIONS… Persuasive arguments -> Polarised because we are exposed to novel and compelling arguments supporting own position Social comparison -> Compare own position with other group members, polarise if we feel we don’t “stack up” Self-categorisation -> We categorise ourselves as a member of the group, polarise to be consistent with what we think group norms are POLARISATION FROM A SELFCATEGORISATION PERSPECTIVE ▪ Self-categorisation theory (SCT; Turner et al., 1987) - Identification with group -> conformity to group norm -> accentuate differences ▪ Meta-contrast principle (Turner, 1985) differences between groups are accentuated, and differences within groups are minimised ▪ Strengthens “Us versus them” mindset POLARISATION FROM A SELFCATEGORISATION PERSPECTIVE ▪ Polarisation is a natural consequence of group formation and intergroup contexts (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987) ▪ Exaggeration of perceived intergroup (between) differences and downplaying of intragroup (within) differences (Oakes et al., 1994). Beyond Conflict, 2020 PERCEIVING POLARISATION ▪ SCT: Consequence of accentuating intergroup differences and downplaying intragroup differences. As a result… ▪ We believe outgroup members hold more extreme ideologies than they actually do (Robinson et al., 1995) ▪ Overestimate polarisation between social groups (Enders & Armaly, 2019; Westfall et al., 2015). ▪ Perceived polarization a stronger predictor of negative consequences (Enders & Armaly, 2019) PERCEIVED POLARIZATION CONSEQUENCES ▪ Reduced trust (Lee, 2022; Rapp, 2016) ▪ Intolerance/negative intergroup attitudes (Brandt & Crawford, 2020). ▪ Undermining COVID responses (Crimston et al., 2022) ▪ Spread of misinformation ( Van Bavel et al., 2021) ▪ Political engagement (Westfall et al., 2015) ▪ Erosion of democracy (Heltzel & Laurin, 2020) ▪ Support for populism (Norris & Inglehart, 2019) PERCEIVED POLARISATION, REAL CONSEQUENCES? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT BECOMES MORALLY CHARGED? ▪ Our moral convictions are developed in conjunction with our groups (Ellemers, 2018) ▪ Moral convictions: fundamental beliefs about right vs. wrong (Skitka, 2021) ▪ When challenged… ▪ Highly emotional, stubborn, hostile, acceptance of violence to achieve desired ends (Skitka, 2010; van Zomeren et al., 2011) ▪ ‘Us versus Them’ = ‘Good versus Evil’ MORALLY CHARGED POLARISATION ▪ What happens when we perceive society is facing this battle of good vs. evil? ▪ Does moral polarisation enhance support for extreme leaders? ▪ Does moral polarisation enhance the negative consequences of losing an election? Crimston, Selvanathan, & Jetten (2022). Political Psychology. Crimston, Jetten, & Selvanathan (2024). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations SUPPORT FOR STRONG LEADERS? ▪ Support for progressive strong leaders “Our country needs a strong leader who is willing to fight for progressive values” “Our country needs a strong leader who is willing challenge the elites and wealthy corporations” ▪ Support for authoritarian strong leaders “Our country needs a strong authoritarian leader right now” “Our country needs a strong leader who is willing to break the rules” Br Pe r ce ive d Moral Polar is o a ti ea kdo wn of Social Fa ic r b Au th or i tar ia n e L g n o S tr a r e d n Br ea kdo w n o f Le ade i h s r p Pr og re s sive Strong Lea r de s s Welcome to Orinthia! In this study you will become a citizen of Orinthia. You will start a new life there and become a member of Orinthian society. Orinthia is just like most other Western societies. It is modern, relatively wealthy, and most citizens have a reasonably high standard of living. Strong Leader Support 6 *** 5 4 * 3 2 1 Progressive Strong Leader High Polarization Authoritarian Strong Leader Low Polarization POLARISATION AND ELECTIONS POLARISATION AND ELECTIONS ▪ H1 – Perceived moral polarization will enhance the expected negative consequences of losing an election (i.e., the outgroup candidate wins). ▪ H2 – The effect of perceived moral polarization on post-election expectations/consequences will be mediated by the perceived breakdown of society. Perceived moral polarisation “Outgroup” leader wins election Perceived breakdown of society Post election bedlam 4 Overturn the election 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Biden Win Trump Win Biden Win Low Polarization Trump Win High Polarization Liberals Conservatives on oO ver tur n the E Ele c ig h m ora l An +h l o p tic t ss ip a ic n lo ar ti o is a tio n nt le rs de v e a k d w n of L o io at ei Br ea c ti hip li g Ob c Per ed te F uture Co l f n DO WE HAVE ANY SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF POLARISATION? ▪ Correcting misperceptions ▪ Paradoxical thinking CORRECTING MISPERCEPTIONS ▪ Can we reduce perceived polarisation by providing accruing information about outgroup beliefs? CORRECTING MISPERCEPTIONS PARADOXICAL THINKING ▪ Exposing individuals to amplified, exaggerated, or even absurd messages that are still congruent with their held societal beliefs. ▪ Disrupt habitual thinking patterns and unfreeze stubborn attitudes. ▪ Israeli-Palestinian conflict PARADOXICAL THINKING ▪ Exposing pro-conflict participants to more extreme pro-conflict arguments ▪ Leading questions that were blatantly more extreme than the conflict-supporting beliefs they held “Why do you think the conflict is needed to strengthen the army?” “Why do you think that the real and only goal the Palestinians have in mind is to annihilate us, a goal which even transcends their basic needs, such as for food and health?” ▪ Promising results! WATCH THIS SPACE… ▪ Still a relatively novel question ▪ Is a certain level of polarisation good for society? ▪ Polarisation serves as the foundation for collective change? PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF WAR & CONFLICT (1) Provides meaning? (2) Is an arena for extreme acts of bravery / heroism (3) Satisfies people’s need for conflict and domination? (4) Helps build ingroup solidarity (5) Causes people to rally around leader MIRROR IMAGES ▪ Bronfenbrenner (1961) travelled through the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, and found that Russians’ criticisms of Americans were strikingly similar to Americans’ criticisms of Russians. ▪ Bronfenbrenner argued that, throughout history, major conflicts have been characterized by the same set of exaggerated and grotesque perceptions (“a mirror image in a twisted glass”) WAR AND INGROUP SOLIDARITY When facing any extreme threat from the outside, there’s a tendency for people to “pull together” – this is a natural psychological reaction to threat from the outside, but in the case of war also has a strategic function in terms of defeating the enemy (“United we stand, divided we fall”). In war, there is extreme pressure for internal critics to keep quiet. ARIYANTO, HORNSEY, & GALLOIS (2010) Muslim Indonesians were given a criticism of Muslims stemming from either another Muslim (an ingroup member) or a Christian (an outgroup member). “A criticism I have about Muslims is that they are often fanatical and easily provoked. They are also intolerant of other faiths” They read this criticism either after reading an article describing extreme MuslimChristian conflict or after reading a control article (on soccer). 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 negativity 4.7 toward 4.5 comments 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 ingroup outgroup no prime conflict primed WAR AND INGROUP SOLIDARITY In times of war, support for the current leadership inevitably goes up. Some would argue that this provides a constant incentive for leaders to keep their people on a war footing, because it boosts their support, and provides a ready-made excuse to vilify political opponents and dissenters as “traitors”. WAR AND INGROUP SOLIDARITY Problem with this is: (a) inhibits civil liberties and freedom of expression (b) a degree of dissent and internal criticism is often necessary in order to make good decisions (see research on “groupthink”). THE ROLE OF PROPAGANDA Conflict and propaganda go hand-in-hand (“the first casualty of war is truth”) Propaganda is often focused on the internal audience – designed to legitimize war, keep up morale, maintain focus on enemy, crush internal dissent. THE ENEMY ISN’T HUMAN One frequent use of propaganda is to portray the enemy as less than human. Such “dehumanized” depictions help people replace the basic human repulsion that we experience at killing other humans with insensitivity. ENEMY IS MONSTROUS ENEMY IS EVIL PROPAGANDA, DEHUMANIZATION AND THE MEDIA Given that support for war domestically is an important pre-requisite for success, governments are motivated to ensure that the broader public don’t see the enemy as humans like themselves. Media coverage and official rhetoric is carefully controlled to allow people to go into denial about the human cost of the conflict. Images (e.g., photos) suddenly become powerful tools that can influence public opinion one way or the other. ▪ Q1. What are the different forms of polarization? ▪ Q2. What are some of the explanations for group polarization? REVISION QUESTIONS ▪ Q3. Why do we have overestimated perceptions of polarization? ▪ Q4. What is unique about morally charged polarization? ▪ ▪ Q5. Do we have effective solutions to polarization? ▪ Q6. What similarities do we see between polarization and conflict in terms of exaggerated perceptions? ▪ Q7. What functions do propaganda serve during conflict? 61 SOME READINGS Crimston C. R., Selvanathan H. P., Jetten J. (2022). Moral polarization predicts support for authoritarian and progressive strong leaders via the perceived breakdown of society. Political Psychology, 43(4), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12787 Enders, A. M., & Armaly, M. T. (2019). The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Political Behavior , 41, 815–839. https://doiorg.virtual.anu.edu.au/10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2 62 NEXT WEEK: GROUP BASED EMOTIONS & COLLECTIVE CHANGE