Submission 48
Outgroup hostility across six social identity contexts
PS1-G10-01
Presented by: Luis Miller
In recent years, partisan identity has become a significant factor in shaping social identities across Western societies. This trend divides individuals into groups of political allies and adversaries, with strong partisan identities often fostering a pronounced in-group bias. Several societal dynamics contribute to this, including the polarization of political elites on civil rights and moral issues, the sorting of citizens along partisan lines based on social characteristics, and increasing hostility toward members of opposing groups. As a result, many individuals develop stronger emotional attachments to their political party than to other social groups, a phenomenon termed "partyism." This growing attachment poses a significant threat to contemporary democracies.
Research on partyism primarily focuses on macro-level effects, such as its influence on national politics and media consumption. However, the micro-level mechanisms driving this phenomenon remain underexplored. Two key hypotheses suggest why partyism has surpassed other social divisions, such as race or religion. First, societal norms discourage overt prejudice based on race or gender but fail to regulate hostility toward political opponents. Second, partisan divides are perceived differently because party affiliation is considered a choice, unlike inherited traits such as ethnicity or race. People are more likely to assign blame for political choices than for innate attributes. These two hypotheses may be interconnected, as the perception of an identity as choice-based could influence social norms and behavior.
Although research on partyism has predominantly focused on the United States, recent studies in European contexts highlight the absence of norms regulating partyism as a critical factor. Behavioral experiments conducted in Europe confirm this, but the hypothesis that individuals are judged or blamed for their political affiliations remains untested. This study addresses both hypotheses through two behavioral experiments and a large-scale survey experiment.
Previous research often compares partisan identities with “ascribed” identities, such as race or gender, and “achieved” identities, such as education or political affiliation. Partisan identity, as an achieved identity, is often linked to individual agency and perceived as a choice. This perceived moral responsibility may explain why individuals are judged more harshly for their political affiliations than for inherited traits.
This study uses the ascribed-achieved framework to explore the divisiveness of partisan identities. Ascribed identities, such as gender or nationality, are generally seen as unchangeable, while achieved identities, such as education or political affiliation, are viewed as the result of individual effort or choice. However, identities often fall along a continuum, incorporating elements of both. For instance, religion is traditionally ascribed but can also be achieved through conversion or personal choice.
In laboratory experiments, discrimination and social norms were tested in the contexts of politics, religion, and football. Football was chosen as a comparable achieved identity. Results showed lower discrimination against religious outgroups compared to political or football affiliations. A survey experiment conducted on 3,000 Spaniards further explored the continuum of identity perception, revealing that politics is viewed as the most choice-driven identity, while gender and nationality are seen as the least.
Research on partyism primarily focuses on macro-level effects, such as its influence on national politics and media consumption. However, the micro-level mechanisms driving this phenomenon remain underexplored. Two key hypotheses suggest why partyism has surpassed other social divisions, such as race or religion. First, societal norms discourage overt prejudice based on race or gender but fail to regulate hostility toward political opponents. Second, partisan divides are perceived differently because party affiliation is considered a choice, unlike inherited traits such as ethnicity or race. People are more likely to assign blame for political choices than for innate attributes. These two hypotheses may be interconnected, as the perception of an identity as choice-based could influence social norms and behavior.
Although research on partyism has predominantly focused on the United States, recent studies in European contexts highlight the absence of norms regulating partyism as a critical factor. Behavioral experiments conducted in Europe confirm this, but the hypothesis that individuals are judged or blamed for their political affiliations remains untested. This study addresses both hypotheses through two behavioral experiments and a large-scale survey experiment.
Previous research often compares partisan identities with “ascribed” identities, such as race or gender, and “achieved” identities, such as education or political affiliation. Partisan identity, as an achieved identity, is often linked to individual agency and perceived as a choice. This perceived moral responsibility may explain why individuals are judged more harshly for their political affiliations than for inherited traits.
This study uses the ascribed-achieved framework to explore the divisiveness of partisan identities. Ascribed identities, such as gender or nationality, are generally seen as unchangeable, while achieved identities, such as education or political affiliation, are viewed as the result of individual effort or choice. However, identities often fall along a continuum, incorporating elements of both. For instance, religion is traditionally ascribed but can also be achieved through conversion or personal choice.
In laboratory experiments, discrimination and social norms were tested in the contexts of politics, religion, and football. Football was chosen as a comparable achieved identity. Results showed lower discrimination against religious outgroups compared to political or football affiliations. A survey experiment conducted on 3,000 Spaniards further explored the continuum of identity perception, revealing that politics is viewed as the most choice-driven identity, while gender and nationality are seen as the least.