Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyaltie

Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
edited May 2012 in A Moving Train
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... over-facts

Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyalties Over Facts?

When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.

But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.

The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn't an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard.

Nyhan cited the work of political commentator Jonathan Chait, who has drawn a contrast between the upcoming 2012 election between President Obama and the likely Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and the 2004 election between President Bush and John Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts.


"Last time it was Republicans who were against a flip-flopping, out-of-touch elitist from Massachusetts, and now it's Democrats," Nyhan said.

Nyhan also contrasted the outrage in 2004 among Democrats who felt that Bush was politicizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for political gain, and the outrage today among Republicans who feel the Obama re-election campaign is exploiting the killing of Osama bin Laden.

"The whole political landscape has flipped," Nyhan said.

Along with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, Nyhan said, he's exploring the possibility that partisans reject facts because they produce cognitive dissonance — the psychological experience of having to hold inconsistent ideas in one's head. When Democrats hear the argument that the president can do something about high gas prices, that produces dissonance because it clashes with the loyalties these voters feel toward Obama. The same thing happens when Republicans hear that Obama cannot be held responsible for high gas prices — the information challenges their dislike of the president.

Nyhan and Reifler hypothesized that partisans reject such information not because they're against the facts, but because it's painful. That notion suggested a possible solution: If partisans were made to feel better about themselves — if they received a little image and ego boost — could this help them more easily absorb the "blow" of information that threatens their pre-existing views?

Nyhan said that ongoing — and as yet, unpublished — research was showing the technique could be effective. The researchers had voters think of times in their lives when they had done something very positive and found that, fortified by this positive memory, voters were more willing to take in information that challenged their pre-existing views.

"One person talked about taking care of his elderly grandmother — something you wouldn't expect to have any influence on people's factual beliefs about politics," Nyhan said. "But that brings to mind these positive feelings about themselves, which we think will protect them or inoculate them from the threat that unwelcome ideas or unwelcome information might pose to their self-concept."
don't compete; coexist

what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    That article pegs it.
    My own personal belief is that the political landscape has grown in the last decade. People who had absolutely no interest in politics 10 years ago are, now, voicing political opinions.
    This would be a good thing... EXCEPT... these folks typically do not understand the complex machinery of politics. Hell... most of them have no clue of U.S. Government (must have missed that class in high school).
    But, they fully understand sports. They apply the concepts of sports to politics. They pick a team to back and stick with them... no matter what they do. It is seen as 'loyalty'... and loyalty is a virtue. Except if your loyalty is for the sake of loyalty, not based in the world of truth and fact.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Cosmo wrote:
    That article pegs it.
    My own personal belief is that the political landscape has grown in the last decade. People who had absolutely no interest in politics 10 years ago are, now, voicing political opinions.
    This would be a good thing... EXCEPT... these folks typically do not understand the complex machinery of politics. Hell... most of them have no clue of U.S. Government (must have missed that class in high school).
    But, they fully understand sports. They apply the concepts of sports to politics. They pick a team to back and stick with them... no matter what they do. It is seen as 'loyalty'... and loyalty is a virtue. Except if your loyalty is for the sake of loyalty, not based in the world of truth and fact.

    This.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    I've been calling this the rush limbaugh effect.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    I've been calling this the rush limbaugh effect.

    I'd say, you're pretty much pointing the finger at yourself with a labeled effect like that.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    inlet13 wrote:

    I'd say, you're pretty much pointing the finger at yourself with a labeled effect like that.
    Why? People choosing a side and sticking with it regardless. Didn't limbaugh support gw bush with every single decision he made? Or defending the republican party to no end on every issue?
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Why? People choosing a side and sticking with it regardless. Didn't limbaugh support gw bush with every single decision he made? Or defending the republican party to no end on every issue?

    I have no clue about Rush, I don't listen to him... nor do I listen to his replicas on the left. Both sides feel like they are the "victim". Each thinks the other's celebrities are full of shit.

    So, who cares what Rush does? The question is more along the lines of what do you do?

    Targeting the idols of either side isn't the admired approach... in my opinion, one should focus on the issues instead.

    So, in short my issue was - You didn't talk issues, you talked people. With phrases like that you show the cards that you have some Democrat pom-poms hiding in your closet. Why not discuss issues instead?
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    I'd say, you're pretty much pointing the finger at yourself with a labeled effect like that.[/quote]
    Why? People choosing a side and sticking with it regardless. Didn't limbaugh support gw bush with every single decision he made? Or defending the republican party to no end on every issue?[/quote]

    I have no clue about Rush, I don't listen to him... nor do I listen to his replicas on the left. Both sides feel like they are the "victim". Each thinks the other's celebrities are full of shit.

    So, who cares what Rush does? The question is more along the lines of what do you do?

    Targeting the idols of either side isn't the admired approach... in my opinion, one should focus on the issues instead.

    So, in short my issue was - You didn't talk issues, you talked people. With phrases like that you show the cards that you have some Democrat pom-poms hiding in your closet. Why not discuss issues instead?[/quote]

    Lol. Democratic pom poms. Not true, but funny. I see your point.
    My point was simply that the article reminded me of how people like rush stick to the party, regardless of principal.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979

    Lol. Democratic pom poms. Not true, but funny. I see your point.
    My point was simply that the article reminded me of how people like rush stick to the party, regardless of principal.


    Might not be true for you, but seriously take a look around this part of pj.com, there's a lot of people who have no individualized opinion whatsoever. They just root for parties - pom-poms, skirts and all. To me, it's sickening. I totally understand all of our individualized opinions will butt heads at times, that happens... but, there's a few on both Rep and Dem sides, that literally think they are coming up with their own opinion, yet they continually agree with party line.

    Cosmo's post on sports was right on. These people think it's a fucking sport. A lot is on the line here, this ain't no sport. People can disagree with my thoughts all they want, but I'm not basing my thoughts on winning a game. It's not a game.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    edited May 2012
    my father in law, although we are canadian, is go to your grave NDP (new democratic party). He doesn't give a shit who the candidate is, or the issues. He votes NDP, always has, always will (he's a union guy). He even tries to get us to go to their dinners to support their efforts, I did at first, then I realized that I didn't want to align myself with a "faction", but my own set of principles.

    I will never understand supporting a party over the issues. It makes no fucking sense. I have voted for every party in Canada at one point (and in Canada it's not a two party system, believe me, it's way more complicated than that-your primaries last longer than our election campaigns), depending on the issues.

    how many americans vote rep one election and then dem the next?
    Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • inlet13 wrote:


    Might not be true for you, but seriously take a look around this part of pj.com, there's a lot of people who have no individualized opinion whatsoever. They just root for parties - pom-poms, skirts and all. To me, it's sickening. I totally understand all of our individualized opinions will butt heads at times, that happens... but, there's a few on both Rep and Dem sides, that literally think they are coming up with their own opinion, yet they continually agree with party line.

    Cosmo's post on sports was right on. These people think it's a fucking sport. A lot is on the line here, this ain't no sport. People can disagree with my thoughts all they want, but I'm not basing my thoughts on winning a game. It's not a game.

    just a question............does anyone think that partisanship is attributed more to the left or right, or equal both ways?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • ....

    your avatar is pure genius.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    just a question............does anyone think that partisanship is attributed more to the left or right, or equal both ways?
    ...
    My personal opinion... it exists on both sides.
    Whereas the Right is heavily influenced by sources such as FOX News... the Left is equally persueded by organizations such as MoveOn.org. The people who are calling President Obama a socialist, communist, fascist are as ridiculous as those whom called former President Bush a dictator or Hitler.
    What America has to realize is that these organizations have agendas that they wish to move along... so THEY (FOX News Corp, Moveon.org, etc...) can make money. What America NEEDS to do is understand that politics cannot be summed up in sound bites or slogans or bumper stickers and HAS to be dealt with by using intellect, reasoning, compromise and reality. Americans need to form their OWN opinions, based upon reality, truth and fact... rather than having their opinions dictated to them via the television, radio or Internet.
    Arm yourself... with KNOWLEDGE and FACT... not gut feeling, belief or loyalty to some artificial ideology.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • SmellymanSmellyman Asia Posts: 4,524
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    My personal opinion... it exists on both sides.
    Whereas the Right is heavily influenced by sources such as FOX News... the Left is equally persueded by organizations such as MoveOn.org. The people who are calling President Obama a socialist, communist, fascist are as ridiculous as those whom called former President Bush a dictator or Hitler.
    What America has to realize is that these organizations have agendas that they wish to move along... so THEY (FOX News Corp, Moveon.org, etc...) can make money. What America NEEDS to do is understand that politics cannot be summed up in sound bites or slogans or bumper stickers and HAS to be dealt with by using intellect, reasoning, compromise and reality. Americans need to form their OWN opinions, based upon reality, truth and fact... rather than having their opinions dictated to them via the television, radio or Internet.
    Arm yourself... with KNOWLEDGE and FACT... not gut feeling, belief or loyalty to some artificial ideology.


    Dems did it more with a bit of hyperbole. Cons BELIEVE it, still believe he is Muslim kenyan.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    My personal opinion... it exists on both sides.
    Whereas the Right is heavily influenced by sources such as FOX News... the Left is equally persueded by organizations such as MoveOn.org. The people who are calling President Obama a socialist, communist, fascist are as ridiculous as those whom called former President Bush a dictator or Hitler.
    What America has to realize is that these organizations have agendas that they wish to move along... so THEY (FOX News Corp, Moveon.org, etc...) can make money. What America NEEDS to do is understand that politics cannot be summed up in sound bites or slogans or bumper stickers and HAS to be dealt with by using intellect, reasoning, compromise and reality. Americans need to form their OWN opinions, based upon reality, truth and fact... rather than having their opinions dictated to them via the television, radio or Internet.
    Arm yourself... with KNOWLEDGE and FACT... not gut feeling, belief or loyalty to some artificial ideology.


    To be more specific: MSNBC, NYTimes, NPR... all liberal outlets... on the other end, Fox, WSJ, talk radio. We could go on for days naming names. There's no doubt most of these outlets have agendas.

    Half the problem is people can't identify it. Moreover, even if they can, they think in terms of some of the posters in this thread. The ones who say something along the lines of: "well the conservatives are worse at it"... that to me, is a sign that that person is most likely someone who has a Democrat t-shirt on underneath. They are cheerleaders and not objective whatsoever. This isn't to say that Republicans can't do the same, of course they can and do. But, to act like it's one side and not the other, shows the individual can't think objectively. They are rooting on their team in the football game (of politics).
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    The sports team analogy is accurate. (I'm glad I don't follow sports that much anymore.) There is also the constant need--part of human nature--to belong to some type of group, to have some type of defined identity. So, we slap labels on ourselves.
    Also, as many have stated, it is due to a lack of knowledge AND a lack of effort to seek out knowledge. Instead, a majority of America (maybe large minority) would rather sit on the couch and have talking heads on the boob tube dictate to them what their "allegiance" should be. This is much easier than reading, or the aforementioned seeking out of knowledge.
    Let's face it: we are a fast food culture. Cable News Networks are the fast food of the news industry.
    I don't see anything changing any time soon.....we'll have to wait a long time until McDonald's goes out of business.

    Another aspect of our culture is the "I'm right, you're wrong" trend. I am human; I am guilty of it with respect to my views on religion. I don't really say that the religious are wrong, but I freely admit that the idea of religion, and the ego of those (the hyper-religious) who are adamant that their religion is "Truth" and can explain the universe, is maddening to me.
    What knowledge can a human being who only lives 80 or so years on this planet really have about the universe and our place in it? None, in my opinion. And, a particular religious belief that we were born into is not the answer.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    how many americans vote rep one election and then dem the next?
    I have (and vice versa, too).

    My dad was a die-hard Democrat and while I understand where that came from via his history, I always felt it was...limiting.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,481
    I registered Republican... once... so I could vote against Reagan in the primaries.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    By the way, my post wasn't a dig at any party.

    It was about the steadfastedness with which some stick to their affiliation, rather than to their ideals.

    (I feel so much better now that I clarified :P )
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,481
    hedonist wrote:
    By the way, my post wasn't a dig at any party.

    It was about the steadfastedness with which some stick to their affiliation, rather than to their ideals.

    (I feel so much better now that I clarified :P )

    Good point- and clear! :D


    Anybody here ever vote for a party they know had no chance of winning like Green, Communist, Libertarian, Constitution, etc? I have, when it felt like the right thing to do.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    brianlux wrote:
    Anybody here ever vote for a party they know had no chance of winning like Green, Communist, Libertarian, Constitution, etc? I have, when it felt like the right thing to do.

    I have. Though I have also done what I call 'tactical' voting (and am not proud of it), ie. putting my vote for 'the lesser of two evils' when the two front runners are head to head and I really don't want one to win.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    how many americans vote rep one election and then dem the next?
    ...
    Here is my voting record and my reasoning behind my ballot:
    I originally registered as Republican because my Dad was Reprublican and at age 18, I didn't know any better.
    1976 - Voted for Carter over Ford. This was after all of that Watergate/Nixon shit. and we had a sitting President and Vice President (Ford/Rockerfeller) that no one voted for.
    1980 - Voted for Reagan over Carter. The Iran Hostage thing was in full swing, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. My thoughts were we needed strong foriegn policy. Carter wasn't cutting it.
    1984 - Voted for Reagan over Mondale. The nation was strong and prosperous. It was the 80s... I was getting entrenched into the Military/Industrial machinery.
    1988 - Voted for G.H.W. Bush over Dukakis. Because... seriously... Dukakis? Can you blame me?
    1992 - Voted for G.H.W. Bush over Bill Clinton. I thought he was a good president. He did the right thing, bailing out the Savings and Loans which protected average people's accounts. He also did the right thing when the Berlin Wall fell... let the Germans have the day (despite the Republican's want to gloat about it and take credit for it).
    1996 - Voted for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole. His policies were working, I figured he'd won my support.
    2000 - Voted for Gore over G.W.Bush. G.W.Bush's alliance with the Christian Fundamentalist of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson bothered me. Not a big fan of Theocracy.
    2004 - Voted for John Kerry over G.W.Bush. IRAQ.
    2008 - Barack Obama over John McCain. Cannot go back to the G.W. Bush era politics. Cannot risk Sarah Palin that close to becoming President.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 11,755
    I believe those in power: Extremely wealthy, media, politicians have a vested interest in pitting 2 sides against one another in order to distract everyone from the fact that those in power are raping our country blind.

    Many of us arguing have a lot more in common than we think.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    MayDay10 wrote:
    I believe those in power: Extremely wealthy, media, politicians have a vested interest in pitting 2 sides against one another in order to distract everyone from the fact that those in power are raping our country blind.

    Many of us arguing have a lot more in common than we think.
    ...
    I agree. This ridicuous division (along bullshit political lines) only benefits those who run the show. The Extremely Wealthy... not bullshit chumps with Derek Jeter sized chump salaries... the ones who spend Jeter's salary on show horses and compounds in Martha's Vineyard.
    Media clebrities such as Bill O'Reilley, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck are in the business of selling books and movies and television sponsorships. The first clue to Americans should be... 'If it is on your television... IT ISN'T REAL'.
    And the BEST Thing for these people is... Term Limits. Weird, huh? Term limits would only make the same politicians run for other offices and the only consistency in our Federal Government would be... LOBBYISTS. Lobbyists do not have term limits and could and have been lobbying for decades. You think it's bad now... imagine the lobbyists with the power to weild legislation. It's bad now... with the only bright spot being... it could be worse.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    I agree. This ridicuous division (along bullshit political lines) only benefits those who run the show. The Extremely Wealthy... not bullshit chumps with Derek Jeter sized chump salaries... the ones who spend Jeter's salary on show horses and compounds in Martha's Vineyard.
    Media clebrities such as Bill O'Reilley, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck are in the business of selling books and movies and television sponsorships. The first clue to Americans should be... 'If it is on your television... IT ISN'T REAL'.
    And the BEST Thing for these people is... Term Limits. Weird, huh? Term limits would only make the same politicians run for other offices and the only consistency in our Federal Government would be... LOBBYISTS. Lobbyists do not have term limits and could and have been lobbying for decades. You think it's bad now... imagine the lobbyists with the power to weild legislation. It's bad now... with the only bright spot being... it could be worse.

    I agree with term limits. Being a member of congress was never intended to be a full time job. Career politicians are ruining us.
Sign In or Register to comment.