Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
I could never toe the party line. I’d wear out the carpet crossing the floor.
– Hazel McCallion, former mayor of Mississauga, Ontario.
Political polarization at the elite level is a major concern in many contemporary democracies, which is argued to alienate large swaths of the electorate and prevent meaningful social change from occurring, yet little is known about how individuals respond to political candidates who deviate from the party line and express policy positions incongruent with their party affiliations. This experiment examines the neural underpinnings of such evaluations using functional MRI (fMRI). During fMRI, participants completed an experimental task where they evaluated policy positions attributed to hypothetical political candidates. Each block of trials focused on one candidate (Democrat or Republican), but all participants saw two candidates from each party in a randomized order. On each trial, participants received information about whether the candidate supported or opposed a specific policy issue. These issue positions varied in terms of congruence between issue position and candidate party affiliation. We modeled neural activity as a function of incongruence and whether participants were viewing ingroup or outgroup party candidates. Results suggest that neural activity in brain regions previously implicated in both evaluative processing and work on ideological differences (insula and anterior cingulate cortex) differed as a function of the interaction between incongruence, candidate type (ingroup versus outgroup), and political ideology. More liberal participants showed greater activation to incongruent versus congruent trials in insula and ACC, primarily when viewing ingroup candidates. Implications for the study of democratic representation and linkages between citizens’ calls for social change and policy implementation are discussed.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Arceneaux, K. (2008). Do partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior,30(2), 139–160. CrossRef
Atieh, J. M., Brief, A. P., & Vollrath, D. A. (1987). The Protestant work ethic-conservatism paradox: Beliefs and values in work and life. Personality and Individual Differences,8(4), 577–580. CrossRef
Binder, S. A. (2003). Stalemate: Causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience,7(4), 356–366. CrossRef
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,42, 116–131. CrossRef
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin,119, 197–253. CrossRef
Chirumbolo, A., Areni, A., & Sensales, G. (2004). Need for cognitive closure and politics: Voting, political attitudes, and attributional style. International Journal of Psychology,39(4), 245–253. CrossRef
Cunningham, W. A., Haas, I. J., & Jahn, A. (2011). Attitudes. In J. Decety & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social neuroscience (pp. 212–226). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, W. A., Zelazo, P. D., Packer, D. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2007). The iterative reprocessing model: A multilevel framework for attitudes and evaluation. Social Cognition,25, 736–760. CrossRef
Dale, A. M., Greve, D. N., & Burock, M. A. (1999). Optimal stimulus sequences for event-related fMRI. NeuroImage,9, S33–S33. CrossRef
Dalton, R. J. (2008). The quantity and the quality of party systems party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies,41(7), 899–920. CrossRef
Dancey, L., & Sheagley, G. (2013). Heuristics behaving badly: Party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science,57(2), 312–325. CrossRef
Edwards, G. C., III, Barrett, A., & Peake, J. (1997). The legislative impact of divided government. American Journal of Political Science,41(2), 545–563. CrossRef
Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2000). Conservatives’ approach to work: Less prepared for future work demands? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,30(1), 171–195. CrossRef
Gillies, J., & Campbell, S. (1985). Conservatism and poetry preferences. British Journal of Social Psychology,24(3), 223–227. CrossRef
Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology,20(2), 393–403. CrossRef
Haas, I. J. (2016). The impact of uncertainty, threat, and political identity on support for political compromise. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 137–152. CrossRef
Hare, C., & Poole, K. T. (2014). The polarization of contemporary American politics. Polity,46(3), 411–429. CrossRef
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Jennings, M. K. (1992). Ideological thinking among mass publics and political elites. Public Opinion Quarterly,56(4), 419–441. CrossRef
Jones, J. M. (2014). Americans continue to say a third political party is needed. Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/177284/americans-continue-say-third-political-party-needed.aspx.
Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., Westlye, M. C., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1986). The partisan affinities of independent ‘leaners’. British Journal of Political Science,16(2), 155–185. CrossRef
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science,45, 951–971. CrossRef
Leone, L., & Chirumbolo, A. (2008). Conservatism as motivated avoidance of affect: Need for affect scales predict conservatism measures. Journal of Research in Personality,42(3), 755–762. CrossRef
Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2008). Attributing blame: The public’s response to Hurricane Katrina. The Journal of Politics,70(1), 120–135. CrossRef
Masket, S. (2009). No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. CrossRef
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of political ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Mondak, J., & Mitchell, D.-G. (2008). Fault lines: Why the Republicans lost Congress. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. The Journal of Politics,73(4), 1165–1177. CrossRef
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Beyond distrust: How Americans view their government. http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/beyond-distrust-how-americans-view-their-government/.
Psychology Software Tools Inc. (2012). E-Prime 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.pstnet.com.
Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science,37, 472–496. CrossRef
Sinclair, B. (2006). Party wars. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Worsley, K. J. (2001). Statistical analysis of activation images. In P. Jezzard, P. M. Matthews, & S. M. Smith (Eds.), Functional MRI: An introduction to methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zavala, D., Golec, A., Cislak, A., & Wesolowska, E. (2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility. Political Psychology,31(4), 521–541. CrossRef
- Who Can Deviate from the Party Line? Political Ideology Moderates Evaluation of Incongruent Policy Positions in Insula and Anterior Cingulate Cortex
Ingrid Johnsen Haas
Melissa N. Baker
Frank J. Gonzalez
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Wissenstransfer im Outsourcing/© WrightStudio | stock.adobe.com