Date 27-05-2015 1 What does it mean to have a politicized identity? An investigation of politicization during the 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections Felicity Turner-Zwinkels, Martijn van Zomeren, Tom Postmes
Date 27-05-2015 2 Definition: Shared grievance Power struggle Societal support Simon & Klandermans (2001) Process: Qualitative Self understandings sharpened Reconstrue change in environment the self Simon & Klandermans (2001)
Date 27-05-2015 3 motivated fun reader Athletic Identification: strength of relation Identity content: Meaning
Date 27-05-2015 4 Outline: Study 1: What identity changes take place during politicization? Study 2: What type of content characterizes politicized identities?
Date 27-05-2015 5 1. Longitudinal Method Aug Oct Nov Dec Jan T1 T2 T3 Sample 762 participants Elections Date! - 462 female, 268 male, 32 unspecified - Age 18-83 (M= 33.23, SD = 12.69) - 51% Democrat, 21% Republican 10% Libertarian, 7% other, 12% No preference)
Date 27-05-2015 6 2. Identity content measure Associative Recall Task (ART) 1. Personal identity 2. Party-activist identity
Date 27-05-2015 8 Study 1: What identity changes take place during politicization?
Date 27-05-2015 9 Study 1: Sub Sample Group 1: Unpoliticized 87 pps 115 Participants - 79 female, 36 male Aug - Age 18-83 (M= 36.29, SD = 14.29) - 60% (65.2%) Democratic T1-22.60% (21.7%) Republican T2-8.7% (5%) Libertarian - 7% (2.6%) Green NOT and 1.7% (0%) other. NOT Party activist Oct Nov Party activist Dec - All self-label as non politicized at T1 Jan T3 NOT Party activist Voted Group 2 Politicized 28 pps NOT Party activist Party activist Party activist Voted
11 Date 27-05-2015 11 Hypotheses skilled tough motivated motivated fun reader Athletic Integration hypothesis: More integration between content of activist & personal Identities in politicized individuals (v. non-politicized).
12 Date 27-05-2015 12 Hypotheses skilled tough motivated motivated fun reader Athletic Integration hypothesis: More integration between content of activist & personal Identities in politicized individuals (v. non-politicized). Integration-action hypothesis : Integration between content of activist & personal Identities predicts engagement in action.
Date 27-05-2015 13 Study 1: Results 1. Integration hypothesis 2. Integration-Action hypothesis
Date 27-05-2015 14 Study 1: Results 1. Integration hypothesis 2. Integration-Action hypothesis
Personal and activist identity overlap Date 27-05-2015 15 4.00 3.50 F(2,202) = 3.48, p <.05* 3.00 2.50 Unpoliticized Politicized n = 87 n = 28 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1 2 3 Time-point Figure 1. Total personal and activist identity content overlap for politicized and nonpoliticized participants, over-time. Standard errors are 95% confidence intervals.
Date 27-05-2015 16 Predicting politicization (DV) Step 1 Identity content overlap T1 1.052 [X VALUE] 2.114 Step 2 Identity content overlap at T1 0.928 1.337 [X VALUE] Identity content overlap at T2 1.075 1.406 [X VALUE] [X VALUE] 0.75 2 3 Odd ratio Figure 2. Plot of exponents from logistic regression model predicting shift in selflabelled politicization from identity content overlap at T1 and T2
Date 27-05-2015 17 Study 1: Results 1. Integration hypothesis 2. Integration-Action hypothesis
Date 27-05-2015 18 Predicting party activism (DV) IV: Identity content overlap T1 Identity content overlap T2 Figure 3. Plot of coefficients from regression model predicting engagement in action promoting one s party at T2 (controlling for T1) from identity content overlap at T1 and T2
Date 27-05-2015 19 Study 1: Conclusion Politicized individuals have more integrated identities. Identity content can play a key role explaining change.
Date 27-05-2015 20 Study 2: What type of content characterizes politicized identities?
Date 27-05-2015 21 Study 2: What type of content characterizes politicized identities? Is an activist identity moral? Prior literature highlights Moral emotions; Moral mediators; Moral constraints Hercus, 1999; van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004; Thomas & Mcgarty, 2009; Thomas, McGarty & Mavor, 2009; Drury & Reicher, 2005; Simon, & Ruhs, 2008; Simon & Grabow, 2010; Klandermans, Van der Toorn & Van Stekelenburg, 2008; Phalet, Baysu & Verkuyten, 2010; Simon & Stürmer, 2004 honest trustworthy sincere
Date 27-05-2015 22 Method 69 Democratic supporters: - 50 female, 19 male - Age 19-83 (M= 36.36, SD = 14.46)
Date 27-05-2015 23 Method 69 Democratic supporters: Aug Oct Nov Dec Jan T1 T2 T3 Group 1: Non-activist 49 pps NOT Party activist NOT Party activist NOT Party Activist Voted Group 2 Activist 20 pps Party activist Party activist Party Activist Voted
24 Date 27-05-2015 24 Hypotheses honest skilled motivated Code: Morals Competence Warmth Moral-content hypothesis: Activists perceive more moral content in activist identities than non-activists.
25 Date 27-05-2015 25 Hypotheses Code: Morals honest skilled motivated motivated kind smart Competence Warmth warm Moral-bridges hypothesis: moral overlap between personal and activist identities will predict seeing the self as an activist Moral-action hypothesis: morals overlap between personal and activist identities will predict engagement in party action.
Date 27-05-2015 26 Study 2: Results 1. Moral Content hypothesis 2. Moral-bridges hypothesis 3. Moral-action hypothesis
Date 27-05-2015 27 Study 2: Results 1. Moral Content hypothesis 2. Moral-bridges hypothesis 3. Moral-action hypothesis
identity content count Moral Identity content count Date 27-05-2015 28 Moral 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.3 1 2 3 0.1 Politicized Activist Unpoliticized Non-Activist Time-point 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 Note. Non-activist n=49; Activist n=20, 95% CI around estimate Competence 1 2 3
Warmth Identity content count Moral Identity content count Date 27-05-2015 29 Moral 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.3 1 2 3 0.1 Politicized Activist Unpoliticized Non-Activist Time-point 1.2 1.2 Note. Non-activist n=49; Activist n=20, 95% CI around estimate Warmth 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 1 2 3 Time-point
Date 27-05-2015 30 Study 2: Results 1. Moral Content hypothesis 2. Moral-bridges hypothesis 3. Moral-action hypothesis
Date 27-05-2015 31 Logistic Regression: Predicting Seeing the self as an activist (DV) Overlap Predicting Politicized (0/1) 31 T1: Step 1 Overlap: B = 0.36, SE = 0.17, W (1) =4.52*, Exp = 1.44 Step 2 Overlap: B = 0.33, SE = 0.20, W (1) =1.35, Exp = 1.09 Moral overlap: B = 2.02, SE = 0.97, W (1) =4.28*, Exp = 7.50
Date 27-05-2015 32 Logistic Regression: Predicting Seeing the self as an activist (DV) Overlap Predicting Politicized (0/1) 32 T2: Step 1 Overlap: B = 0.31, SE = 0.16, W (1) = 3.63^, Exp = 1.36 Step 2 Overlap: B = 0.12, SE = 0.22, W (1) = 0.30, Exp = 1.13 Moral overlap: B = 1.62, SE = 0.90, W (1) = 3.25^, Exp = 5.05
Date 27-05-2015 33 Study 2: Results 1. Moral Content hypothesis 2. Moral-bridges hypothesis 3. Moral-action hypothesis
Date 27-05-2015 34 Predicting party activism (DV) IV: Identity content overlap T1 Moral identity content overlap T1 Figure 4. Plot of coefficients from regression model predicting engagement in action promoting one s party at T2 (controlling for T1) from general and moral identity content overlap at T1
Date 27-05-2015 36 Generalizability: Republicans 69 Participants - 26 politicized, 43 unpoliticized at T2-47 female, 22 male - Age 19-75 (M= 39.80, SD = 14.77) Moral content hypothesis: Replicates Moral bridges hypothesis: Some support Moral action hypothesis: Replicates
Date 27-05-2015 37 Study 2: Conclusion Moral overlap is important for how activists see the self But has weaker motivational power Strong evidence for morals in the activist identity.
Date 27-05-2015 38 Final Conclusion Politicization is a process of qualitative change Unconstrained content recall gives results!
Date 27-05-2015 39 Thank you for your attention! Questions?... F.m.turner@rug.nl
Date 27-05-2015 40
moral competence warm trustworthy (16.2), (20.2), (21.1), (21.2), (22.i), (22.1), (22.2), (4.1), (8.1), (Felicity, paper 30), (F, 30), (6.1), (1.1), (5.1), (4.1 psyc), (5.2 1 psyc), (8) 1 sincere (16.2), (20.2), (21.1), (21.2), Coding (22.i) (22.1), (22.2),(23.1), (4.1), (8.1), 2 (F, 30), (1.1), (5.1), (6.1), 2 Intelligent (1) (15.1), (15.4), (16.2), (21.1), (21.3) (Felicity, paper 30), (21.2), (22.1) (22.3), (23.1), (4.1), (5.1), (6.1), (F,30, example), (2.6 psyc), (4.1 psyc) (3.i psyc info) 1 capable (1) (15.1), (21.2), (22.3), (8.1) (16) (22.1) 2 honest (16.2), (22.i), (22.1), (22.2), (23.1), (4.1), (8.1), (Felicity, paper 30), (F, 30), (6.1), (F, 31), (2.1, 2.3 psyc) 3 (13.3) (5) (6) (15) (21) 3 efficient (1) (15.1), (22.1) (22.3), (16) 3 4 5 correct (1) (F, 30), (2.2 psyc) (16.1) (5) (22.i) 4 moral (13.3) (8r?) (15) (4.1 psyc info) 5 friendly (1) (21.2), (22.1), (23.1), (4.1), (30.i) (F, 30), (F, 30), (13.3) (5) (6) (8r?) (15) Date (16) 27-05-2015 (22.i) (3.i psyc info) kind (1) (21.2), (23.1), (F, 30), (5.3 psyc) (5) (6) (3.i psyc info) (5.1 psyc info) likeability (1) (20.2), (21.2), (23.1), (F, 30), (F, 30), (4.1 psyc) (5) (6) (15) (16) (21) (22.i) (22.1) (4.1 psyc info) skillfullness (16.2), (22.1) (22.3), (6.1), (Felicity, paper 30), (5) (8r?) (3.i psyc info) 4 caring (4.1), (8.1), (13.3) Competant (23.1) (5) (6) (8) (16) (21.3), (22.i) (22.1) (23.1) (4.1 psyc info) 5 ability/ able (1) (15) (21.1) (23.1) (3.i psyc info) 6 warm (4) (6) (8) (21.3) (22.1) (30.i) (4.1 psyc info) sociable, (4.1), (Felicity, 30) (16.1), (6) (22.i) 6 good (5.2 psyc) (F, 30) 6 dependable (15.4) (4.1 psyc 7 info) 7 achieve(ment) (F,30) (5.1 psyc info) 7 connectedness (5) (16) (22.i) 8 respectable (22.2) 8 motivated (4.1) (8r?) 8 cooperation (16) (22.i) 9 righteous (22.2) 9 organized (4.1), (8r?) 9 helpful (F, 30) (22.1) 10 ethical (4.1 psyc) 10 clever (13.3) 10 nice (15) 11 fair (5.2 psyc) 11 succesful (F, 30) 11 considerate (8.1) 12 principled (1) 12 bright (13.3) 12 generous (5.3 psyc) 13 honorable (15.4) 13 solve (problems) (5.1 psyc info) 14 accomplished (15.4) 41