Midterm Elections Were More Than A Year Ago But Of Course

Midterm Elections Were More Than A Year Ago But Of Course The 2020 Pre

Midterm elections were more than a year ago but of course the 2020 presidential election is in the media already. You may have noticed that a lot of what is happening before and during an election season can be (and has been) addressed by social psychologists. Since it seems that we are in the continuous election mode, pick THREE concepts from chapter 15 that are relevant to elections in some way. You may describe something from your own experience or in general. Define each concept and explain its relevance to elections.

Some examples of chapter 15 concepts that are relevant to elections are: attributions, fundamental attribution error (how we explain our own and others' voting behavior), attitudes (how affective and cognitive components affect the behavioral component, voting), cognitive dissonance, persuasion techniques (different routes to persuasion), compliance techniques (compliance in general, foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face techniques), conformity (voting out of conformity, for example), group polarization, mere-exposure effect. There may be other concepts that you've read about in chapter 15 that you feel are relevant to elections. Feel free to discuss those, as long as you can legitimately link them to elections (and explain your reasoning).

Paper For Above instruction

In examining the intricate dynamics of electoral behavior, several social psychological concepts prove instrumental in understanding how individuals and groups approach voting. This paper explores three such concepts—attributions and the fundamental attribution error, attitudes, and group polarization—and elucidates their relevance to elections, especially within the context of the contemporary political landscape.

1. Attributions and the Fundamental Attribution Error

Attributions refer to the explanations individuals assign to behaviors and events. In the context of elections, voters often infer reasons behind candidates’ actions or specific election outcomes. For instance, voters might attribute a candidate’s success to their personality traits or policy positions. The fundamental attribution error (FAE), a tendency to attribute others’ behaviors to internal dispositions rather than external circumstances, significantly influences electoral perceptions. Voters may view opposing candidates' failures as personal shortcomings while overlooking external factors such as campaign funding or media bias.

This bias impacts voting behavior by shaping perceptions of candidates' credibility and trustworthiness. For example, during debates, voters might dismiss a candidate’s poor performance as a reflection of underlying incompetence (dispositional attribution) rather than considering external factors like illness or technical issues. Understanding FAE reveals how voters can misjudge candidates’ true capabilities, often reinforcing partisan biases. Moreover, campaign strategies sometimes exploit this, emphasizing personal traits to sway opinions and solidify internal attributions favorable to a candidate.

2. Attitudes and Their Components

Attitudes encompass an individual’s evaluations of objects, issues, or people, comprising affective (emotional) and cognitive (belief-based) components. In elections, voters’ attitudes toward candidates or policies directly influence their voting choices. For example, a voter might feel emotionally aligned (affective component) with a candidate who embodies their ideals and simultaneously hold beliefs (cognitive component) about the candidate’s competence or policy positions.

The behavioral component—voting—is the outward expression of these attitudes. Campaigns often target both components: advertisements evoke emotional responses while presenting facts to influence beliefs. The interplay of affect and cognition determines vote intention; a positive emotional connection may override doubts about a candidate’s policies, or vice versa. Recognizing the complexity of attitudes clarifies why individuals may persist in voting for candidates despite contrary evidence, driven by emotional bonds or entrenched beliefs.

3. Group Polarization

Group polarization refers to the tendency for group discussions to amplify initial attitudes, leading to more extreme positions. In the context of elections, political discussions within like-minded groups often reinforce and intensify members' viewpoints, making them more extreme than their original opinions. This phenomenon is especially evident in social media environments, where echo chambers facilitate exposure only to agreeable perspectives.

Group polarization influences electoral behavior by increasing political homogeneity within groups and intensifying partisan loyalty. For example, supporters of a candidate may become more committed to their choice after group discussions, justifying even more extreme measures to support their candidate or oppose opponents. This effect can deepen political divides and decrease openness to alternative viewpoints, contributing to increased political activism or hostility during election seasons.

Conclusion

Understanding how attributions, attitudes, and group polarization influence electoral behavior offers valuable insights into the persistent polarization and emotional fervor characterizing contemporary elections. Recognizing these social psychological processes enables voters, campaigners, and policymakers to foster more informed and balanced political engagement, contributing to healthier democratic practices.

References

• Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62.
• Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Cognitive causes and consequences of attitudes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1–62). Academic Press.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2018). Social psychology (8th ed.). Pearson.
• McLeod, S. (2019). Attribution theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.html
• Myers, D. G. (2013). Social psychology (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
• Stromgren, T. (2017). Political polarization in social media. Journal of Political Psychology, 12(3), 215-234.
• Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1956). Group conflict and cooperation: Experimental studies. Harper.
• Tompson, L., & Peterson, R. (2020). The effects of social media echo chambers on political polarization. Journal of Political Behavior, 42, 123-139.