Party Identity and the Evaluation of Political Candidates

Abstract

Our political attitudes shape our perceptions of the world. It has been suggested to use Social Identity Theory (SIT) as a framework within a political context. Specifically, SIT can be used to explain the preference for in-group members who share a political identity and dislike of out-group members who do not. Given the literature using SIT as a framework and that political attitudes can bias perceptions, a person’s political identity can impact the evaluation of a candidate. A total of 232 undergraduate students from Georgia State University completed a questionnaire evaluating a political candidate that was either labeled as a Republican, Democratic, or without a label. The results showed a significant difference in the evaluation of the candidate depending on whether or not the participant shared the same party identity. This supports the notion that the party label alone can have an impact on candidate evaluations. The preference for in-group members and distrust of out-group members supports using SIT as a model explaining this phenomenon within a political context. PARTY ID AND EVAL OF CANDIDATES 3 Party Identity and the Evaluation of Political Candidates Attitudes & Party Identity Our attitudes shape our perceptions of the world. Partisanship acts as an attitude shaping our views towards people, issues, and objects. It is stable and relatively unchanging over time (Greene, 2002). Understanding partisan identity is as equally important to understand as other group identities individuals have because it behaves in a similar way. Racial, ethnic, and religious identities all tie individuals to a group just like partisan identity does (Campbell, et al, 1960). Partisan identity allows for individuals to distort perceptions of their in-group. Specifically, it allows for individuals to form more favorable perceptions of their in-group and negative perceptions of the out-group. An increase in polarization and animosity between political parties has been increasing since the 1960s (Haidt & Hetherington, 2012; Iyengar, et al, 2012). This is partially due to the increase in technology and the ability for individuals to act out confirmation bias, seeking information that confirms their beliefs and tuning out information that does not (Iyengar, et al, 2012). It has been suggested to use Social Identity Theory (SIT) as a framework within a political context to better explain party identity (Greene, 2004; Greene, 2005). SIT explains how an individual’s self-concept is tied to their perceived group membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, SIT explains the preference for in-group members. In addition, SIT states that individuals place an emotional value on these group memberships, explaining in-group bias. Although SIT is rooted within social psychology, there is a great advantage of applying it towards political science. The benefits of using SIT as a model for partisan identity include providing a richer theoretical background to explain the psychological attachment and group belongingness associated with the group (Greene, 2002; Theodoridis, 2015). In addition, it can provide a better PARTY ID AND EVAL OF CANDIDATES 4 explanation for individual behavior as it related to group attachment and is a better predictor for individual behavior (Greene, 2002). SIT explains the bipolarity within American politics, the usversus-them attitude. Importantly, SIT is not intended to replace current theoretical frameworks, but only to expand on them. SIT can be used to explain the preference for in-group members who share a political identity and the stronger dislike for out-group members who do not. Power of the Party Label Although voters should evaluate each candidate individually, it takes a lot of work so many voters rely on other short cuts in order to quickly identify which candidate they prefer. One of these shortcuts is attractiveness. First impressions are very important and images of the physiognomy of politicians’ faces have been studied in order to identify what features are more desirable in a candidate (Budesheim & DePaolo, 1994; Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon 1992; Rosenberg, et al, 1986; Keating, et al, 1999). Even more interestingly, some studies have shown that individuals can identify out-group members simply from a photograph with greater accuracy than would simply be expected due to chance (Olivola & Todorov, 2010; Samochowiec et al, 2010). Wanke, Samochowiec, and Landwehr (2013) suggest that this hypersensitivity to outgroup members has an evolutionary basis. It is more dangerous to trust someone who can harm us than distrusting someone who is harmless. In the American political context, the two parties have become so polarized the past few decades that two separate cultures have resulted and individuals can identify their differences. A study by Iyengar & Westwood (2014), found that out-group animosity and distrust in the political sphere has become ingrained and automatic. All of these studies provide support for attractiveness as a shortcut and support for identifying outgroup members; however, data on the effects party labels have as a shortcut is even more compelling. PARTY ID AND EVAL OF CANDIDATES 5 In an interesting neural study by Kaplan, et al (2007), participants underwent an fMRI and were shown the pictures of members of their political party (in-group members) as well as opposing political party members (out-group members). When shown the pictures of out-group members, there were significant changes in the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate (cognitive regions of the brain) as well as insula and anterior temporal lobes (emotional regions of the brain) when compared to the pictures of in-group members. This study captured, on a neurological level, the emotional and biological responses to expressing positive feelings towards in-group members and negative feelings towards out-group members. Furthermore, the study found that the stronger the negative emotion towards an out-group member, the stronger the positive emotion towards an in-group member. In addition, a study by Young, Ratner, & Fazio (2013) found that individuals remember the faces of out-group politicians as less attractive than those of in-group politicians. Similarly, a study by Ratner, et al (2014) found that in-group faces were rated as more trustworthy in an economic game and were rated as more trusting, caring, intelligent, and attractive overall. Duck et al (1995) found in-group members perceived themselves as less vulnerable to media propaganda than out-group members. In addition, ingroup members felt that out-group members were less likely to listen to messages that countered their views and would only listen to messages supporting their political attitudes. Furthermore, in a study by Bolsen, Druckman, and Cook (2014), participants’ opinion formation on environmental policies was related to whether or not it had the endorsement of the in-group or out-group party. Thus, the party label itself can act as a shortcut in forming attitudes and opinions towards faces and policies. Given the literature on using SIT as a framework and the research supporting that political attitudes can bias perceptions, a person’s political identity can impact the evaluation of a PARTY ID AND EVAL OF CANDIDATES 6 candidate when only an image is presented. This study was conducted in order to examine the link between party labels and the evaluation of political candidates. The study tested (1) whether or not party affiliation can impact the evaluation of a candidate and (2) if people view candidates more favorably if they are from the same party (in-group), but not as much as they dislike candidates from the opposing party (out-group). Thus, supporting the use of SIT as a working framework within political science. The hypotheses were (1) that individual party affiliation does impact the evaluation of a candidate and (2) that in-group favoritism of a candidate would not be as strong as out-group disliking.