When I was first told of this assignment, I knew I wanted to do something unique and original that engaged my interests. When I thought about what that may be, I automatically knew that I should do something that involves politics. Because of this historical election year, with a woman and a black man running for president, I knew it would not be hard to find some topics, like prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. But I was pretty amazed to find how easily social psychology and politics fit together.
I probably had too much fun looking at dozens of Daily Show clips, old political ads from the 1960s through the most recent election, and satirical political cartoons. But it only made this assignment all the more fulfilling (not to mention entertaining), and all the more eye-opening to the realization that social psychology can be used very effectively to explain the inner workings of the political world in America.
My sources were: http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/ http://www.thedailyshow.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2008/ http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/u/cartoons-and-videos.htm Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., Cialdini, R.B. (2005) Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction. (4th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
P.S. Below is my favorite political cartoon. I was planning on using it for the multiple audience dilemma or ingratiation strategies, but I ended up finding better clips/cartoons. But I wanted to include it anyway because I think it's pretty ingenious.
Prejudices are attitudes, mainly negative, towards a group of people, simply from being from that group. Stereotypes are beliefs about people, based on their group membership, their appearance, etc. Both prejudices and stereotypes lead to discrimination, which are unjustified behaviors directed towards people due to their membership, physical appearance, etc (Kenrick, 374-5).
In-group bias is the inclination to favor your group over the out-group. This can involve who gets the resources in an area, but it can also deal with partiality towards certain people. Out-group homogeneity is the perception that everyone in the out-group has very similar if not the same characteristics. This can be seen in the saying, "They all look the same to me" (Kenrick, 380,395).
This clip from The Daily Show has excellent examples of prejudices and stereotypes about both Americans and Canadians. Ed Helms talks about how many Americans, to avoid discrimination from other countries, may act as Canadians. Discrimination in this case may be the act of being treated badly by other people from other countries, the act of being denied certain things because you're from America, etc. The idea that many people in other countries dislike Americans is a prejudice, because they dislike a group of people for being from America. Also, as the clip pointed out, many people from other countries hold stereotypes about Americans, such as they are dumb, arrogant, and bullies. The prejudices of Canadians that Helms touches on are a dislike for being weak. The clip also discusses a stereotype of Canadians, that they are all docile and boring.
This clip from The Daily Show also illustrates in-group bias and out-group homogeneity. Both the Canadian man and Helms thought that their "group" was the best. They also subsequently exhibited perceived out-group homogeneity by saying things such as, "Like a true Canadian, I'll have to thaw out my balls" and "Are you sure you aren't American, because you're being a bit of a d*ck about this." The in-group bias and out-group homogeneity most likely feeds into the stereotypes of the other groups.
Aggression occurs in several forms. Direct aggression occurs when a person engages in a behavior that intends on hurting another to their face. Emotional or hostile aggression occurs when someone is feeling anger towards the person they are acting aggressively towards (Kenrick, 332).
This clip from The Daily Show shows Georgia Senator Zell Miller acting aggressively towards several people, but mainly towards Senator John Kerry. His aggression, which mostly consisted of insults, was direct, because it was intended to hurt John Kerry, and it was emotional/hostile, because it came from his angry feelings towards Kerry. Direct aggression is intended to hurt another; and emotional/hostile aggression is a result of angry feelings.
His aggression is also an example of the culture of honor which is mainly seen in the Southern and Western states of America. When he gets very angry at Chris Matthews for "insulting" him, he becomes very agitated, and later states how he wishes you could still challenge someone to a duel. This is consistent with the theory that people from the South have a tendency to want to defend their honor, and are more likely to get aggressive when they feel they have been insulted.
The frustration-aggression hypothesis is a theory that states that people will act out in aggressive ways when they become frustrated. Frustration is said to occur when a goal is blocked, such as winning a campaign. This hypothesis also states that when anyone is aggressive, one can assume that they are frustrated (Kenrick, 336).
This political cartoon of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is a good example of the frustration-aggression hypothesis. This cartoon shows Clinton as an angry monster attacking Obama. This fits with the frustration-aggression hypothesis because Clinton is most likely frustrated by the fact that she is not winning the campaign, and she is therefore acting aggressively towards the person who is stopping that from happening, Obama.
This cartoon also demonstrates the difference between aggression and assertiveness and gender roles associated with those two things. Many people would say that if Clinton were a man, no one would call her anything but assertive (she is confident and gets what she wants). But this cartoon shows her as an aggressive monster, possibly because of her "attacks" on Obama and his campaign, while it shows Obama as an almost helpless person. This may play into gender stereotypes that men are supposed to be assertive and aggressive, and women are not. Therefore, when Hillary is, she is seen as a monster.
When people become preoccupied with their social standing and reputation, they will be more likely to partake in the actions of kissing up to high status and kissing off stigmatic associations. When someone kisses up to high status, they associate themselves with a person who has things that they wish to have, such as power, money, and respect. And by "kissing up" to that person, they too can have those things. Conversely, when a person kisses off stigmatic associations, they get rid of preexisting acquaintances because they are reflecting poorly on them (Kenrick, 242-3).
This clip from The Daily Show is an example of how politicians, namely Clinton in this case, get rid of people on their staff (or have them "resign") who are embarrassing to them. In the case of Obama, this clip shows him possibly distancing himself from former friends who are doing the same. This is an example of kissing off stigmatic associations. In the case of politicians, their personal image is most likely more important than maintaining balance with their associations and sense of self. Maintaining the balance between associations and sense of self is the main reason why most people do not associate with people who would potentially reflect badly on them. Someone like a politician is more concerned with their social status, and therefore may be more likely to do this than the average person.
The "friendships" or acquaintances that politicians like Clinton and Obama most likely engage in social exchange relationships. These relationships are based on equity, or costs and benefits, and when the costs outweigh the benefits, the acquaintance is broken. This is shown in the case of Ferraro and Clinton.
This political cartoon shows how Obama is kissing up to Oprah's high status to possibly try to gain more votes, most likely women. He is associating himself with the "image" of Oprah, which is an image connected with success, helping people, and with reaching out to those in need. By associating himself with her, he may be able to get what he wants much easier in terms of votes, possible donations, and press coverage. His affiliation with Oprah most likely also has a lot to do with impression motivation, because Barack Obama is trying to put a certain impression of himself out there for the voters to take in, and it is one that involves compassion and determination, two qualities which Oprah possesses.
Obedience is a change in behavior that happens due to a request from an authority figure. It is a certain type of compliance, which is a change in behavior due to a direct request. Both of these are types of social influence, which is a change in behavior due to the perception of pressure from the people around you (Kenrick, 186-7).
Social validation occurs during an ambiguous situation, when we look to the reactions of others to see how we should react. The tendency for people to engage in social validation is very strong, because we have a great need to be correct in our actions and decisions (Kenrick, 197).
This clip from the daily show is a good illustration of obedience to authority. Ed Helm's is discussing how he cannot outwardly say that he disagrees with Cheney and the President (authority figures) because they made him sign a contract promising that he agreed with them. Helms' unwillingness to disregard the oath he took and disagree with Cheney and the President, even when he obviously does, shows how he is being obedient to them. This is related to Milgram's study on obedience, because like Helms, the participants in the study were simply directed to do something undesirable to them, and they followed the orders because they were from an authority figure. This clip also demonstrates compliance, because Helms had a direct request from Cheney via the oath he signed that he would agree with him and the President.
This clip also demonstrates social validation. Ed Helms discussed why Cheney and Bush would want to ensure that they had people who liked them and agreed with them at a rally. He said how if anyone was confused before on if they should like Cheney, all they have to do is look to the others at the rally who seem to love him. This is the definition of social validation, where you look at other people's reactions to find the right answer or decision. Perhaps Cheney and Bush knew that because people want to be correct in their choice so badly, they look to others to find the answer-so they set up perfect situation for social validation to occur.
Fear is often used to persuade and encourage people to do something. The fear message has to be quite severe, but is also has to include a way to get rid of the fear. If the message does not include a plan to get rid of the fear, then the recipients of the message will not be persuaded to do anything about it. Instead, without a remedy for the fear, the recipients may ignore the message or pretend like the fear is not real (Kenrick, 166-7).
This political ad by President Lyndon Johnson from 1964 is a great example of how fear is used to encourage people to motivate people to do a certain action or behavior. In this case, Johnson visualized to Americans how they would all be killed by nuclear weapons if they did not vote for him. That most likely created a considerable amount of fear in the American public. If the ad did not include instructions for reducing the threat of nuclear destruction, the political ad would have been a complete waste of time. However, the high level fear message was followed by ways to make that fear go away, making the fear-inducing ad more effective. This effectiveness most likely created more voter turn out for Johnson in 1964, and may have contributed to his win.
This ad was also most likely played more than once across cities in America. This would mean that the American people would have encountered that message several times, making the message and the remedy for nuclear destruction much more salient to them. Also, at that time, the majority of Americans still trusted Johnson and his leadership. They were not aware of his secret escalation of the Vietnam War, and they still associated him with Kennedy. To the American public, President Johnson was a trustworthy communicator. This most likely only made the message all the more credible to the public.
The elaboration likelihood model stresses that people will either take one of two routes in their thinking: the peripheral route, which focuses on surface qualities of the argument, like how pretty it is or what color it is; or the central route, which focuses more on the quality of the arguments. This model states that we automatically think in the peripheral route, and to move into the central route, we have to be motivated and we have to have the ability to do so (Kenrick, 157).
This political cartoon is an example of how people use the elaboration likelihood model to process information. In this particular cartoon, central and peripheral routes that voters would potentially use to evaluate the candidates are being showcased. In Clinton's case, she is shown with a dunce cap stating how she voted for the Iraq war. The dunce cap represents someone taking the peripheral route, only focuses on the surface elements. But most likely, voters would be taking the central route here, because they would be paying close attention to the arguments of the candidates, thinking about which candidate was best based on their previous decisions in the Senate. To combat the negative influence of these arguments, Senator Clinton is seen trying to switch the voter's back into the peripheral route of thinking. This switch would not focus on the quality of the argument, but more on surface features of the argument, such as the claim that Obama has ties with radical Islam, as shown with his turban. And if the voters were back in the peripheral route of thinking, and they were not motivated or did not have the ability to go back into the central route of analyzing the arguments (which is partly due to her distracting them with her arguments), they would find her argument more compelling.
Public self-consciousness is the awareness that you are constantly being watched by the public. People with high public self-consciousness are usually those who are singled out by a distinguishing factor, such as being the only girl on an all boy football team, or a politician, whose every move is watched by reporters. Those who have more focus placed on them by the public tend to focus on themselves more, more likely to present a specific version of themselves, and they also tend to react badly to rejection (Kenrick, 112-3).
This political cartoon shows Hillary Clinton as having several different "personalities" that she has tried to get across to the public. This is most likely due to her constantly being in the public eye, which would probably lead to a high public self-consciousness. A person who has high public self-consciousness, a person like Clinton, would want to come across positively to many different groups of people. And as the cartoon points out, it may seem as if she actually has too many personalities.
This is also a good example of how she is self-monitoring because it shows how she is constantly trying to impress as many people in the public as possible, changing her behavior to fit different situations. Many politicians do this, especially when they want to appeal to the general public, which tends to be a diverse group of people. The act of constantly molding yourself into a different person for the benefit of the public would probably lead to social anxiety to the extent that Clinton most likely feels the pressure of constantly wanting to make a good impression on others.
The multiple audience dilemma occurs when a person has to present two different sides of them self or two different arguments to two different sets of people. Many people try to make it appear as if their views fit somewhere in the middle between the two opposing arguments, but others just try to separate the audiences so they do not have to. This is obviously done to try to get both sides to see that you agree with them, in hopes of winning their support (Kenrick, 124).
This political ad by Senator John McCain shows how Governor Mitt Romney was faced with a possible multiple audience dilemma throughout his years as a politician. When Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he had to "act" less like a conservative so as not to anger his more liberal constituents. But when he was running for President in 2008, Romney "acted" more like a conservative, to win over more of his targeted base. Romney was trying to impress two different groups of people to win over votes and gain the publics' support, and McCain shows this multiple audience dilemma in this ad.
This ad is also another example of the fundamental attribution error. John McCain, like Romney, also "flip-flopped" on some issues. But instead of seeing Romney's flips as situational (as he most likely saw his own), he saw them as reflective of Romney's disposition.
The fundamental attribution error occurs when a person blames someone else's actions on their disposition, or personality. The fundamental attribution error also says that that same person, in the same situation, would not blame their disposition, but the situation, for their actions. And although some dispositions gravitate toward certain situations, those who always assume that the person's disposition is to blame, and not the situation, usually assume wrong (Kenrick, 80-1).
This clip from The Daily Show was set up to show "past" George W. Bush making a fundamental attribution error towards "current" Bush. However, it mainly shows how Bush is really making a fundamental attribution error towards Saddam Hussein. This is illustrated when Bush is shown imposing deadlines on Hussein in 2003, but when the time has come to impose deadlines on his war in Iraq, he turned around to say that deadlines are not useful and will do more harm than good. Bush also discusses how Hussein is giving America the "run around", dodging questions and answers. However, as the Daily Show points out, Bush has recently done the same things that he condemned Hussein for in the past. Bush assumed that it was Saddam Hussein's personal disposition that lead him to dodge questions, evade deadlines, and lie. But when the same accusations arise for Bush, he does not see his personality as responsible for his evasion, he sees the situation as the reason.
This second clip from The Daily Show also illustrates the fundamental attribution error. In this clip, Bush is shown giving a speech about how Senator John Kerry would not be a good Commander in Chief because he jumps to conclusions without knowing all the facts. Bush is making a dispositional inference in terms of Kerry, where he is assuming that Kerry's actions are a result of his personality alone. However, many would say that Bush himself jumped to conclusions without knowing all the facts when he went to war with Iraq. In this case, Bush would blame these accusations on situational causes, and he would say it had nothing to do with his personal disposition, especially when it came to his capacity to be a good Commander in Chief.
