Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- 23 The Political Psychology of Inequality
- 24 How Social Class Influences Political Choices
- 25 Fear and Loathing in American Politics
- 26 Political Extremism
- 27 The Politics of Hate
- 28 Populism
- 29 A Cultural Theory of Autocracy-vs-Democracy
- 30 Psychological Theories Meet the Challenge of Persuading and Mobilising Voters
- 31 Collective Action for Social Change
- 32 Opinion Formation and Polarisation in the News Feed Era
- 33 Conspiracy Theory Belief and Conspiratorial Thinking
- 34 Political Psychology and the Climate Crisis
- 35 The Political Psychology of Cyberterrorism
- 36 Reconciliation in the Aftermath of Collective Violence
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- Index
- References
26 - Political Extremism
from Part III - Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- 23 The Political Psychology of Inequality
- 24 How Social Class Influences Political Choices
- 25 Fear and Loathing in American Politics
- 26 Political Extremism
- 27 The Politics of Hate
- 28 Populism
- 29 A Cultural Theory of Autocracy-vs-Democracy
- 30 Psychological Theories Meet the Challenge of Persuading and Mobilising Voters
- 31 Collective Action for Social Change
- 32 Opinion Formation and Polarisation in the News Feed Era
- 33 Conspiracy Theory Belief and Conspiratorial Thinking
- 34 Political Psychology and the Climate Crisis
- 35 The Political Psychology of Cyberterrorism
- 36 Reconciliation in the Aftermath of Collective Violence
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- Index
- References
Summary
While the field of political psychology has overwhelmingly focused on political orientation (i.e., ideological content), this chapter proposes that political extremism (i.e., ideological strength) at the left and right also matters for a range of important variables. The main argument is that feelings of distress prompt a desire for epistemic clarity, which increases the appeal of the clear-cut answers that politically extreme movements provide for pressing societal problems. The chapter subsequently proposes that political extremism in most cases is a problem for societies. We review evidence that politically extreme beliefs are associated with overconfidence in the correctness of one’s beliefs and knowledge about the world, an increased susceptibility to beliefs that are not supported by science or reason, and intolerance of competing belief systems or groups perceived as ideologically different. We conclude by articulating a few limitations and research directions in this research domain.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology , pp. 414 - 428Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497Google Scholar
Brandt, M. J., Evans, A. M., & Crawford, J. T. (2015). The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors. Psychological Science, 26(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559730CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, B. L., Kosloff, S., & Landau, M. J. (2013). Death goes to the polls: A meta-analysis of mortality salience effects on political attitudes. Political Psychology, 34(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.), Ideology and its discontents (pp. 206–261). The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. T. (2017). Are conservatives more sensitive to threat than liberals? It depends on how we define threat and conservatism. Social Cognition, 35(4), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.354Google Scholar
Currie, S., & Krouwel, A. (2020). Double anxiety of the upper middle class: The role of relative deprivation in upper-middle-class opposition to EU membership [Manuscript submitted for publication].Google Scholar
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2016). The mechanics of motivated reasoning. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEP.30.3.133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frimer, J. A., Brandt, M. J., Melton, Z., & Motyl, M. (2019). Extremists on the left and right use angry, negative language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1216–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218809705Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation – The left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376Google Scholar
Hales, A. H., & Williams, K. D. (2018). Marginalized individuals and extremism: The role of ostracism in openness to extreme groups. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, L. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review Psychology, 68, 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600Google Scholar
Jost, J. J. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246Google Scholar
Krouwel, A. (2012). Party transformations in European democracies. SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krouwel, A., Kutiyski, Y., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Martinsson, J., & Markstedt, E. (2017). Does extreme political ideology predict conspiracy beliefs, economic evaluations and political trust? Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(2), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i2.745Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand, M. J., Bélanger, J. J., Sheveland, A., Hetiarachchi, M., & Gunaratra, R. (2014). The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Advances in Political Psychology, 35(S1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12163Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lammers, J., Koch, A., Conway, P., & Brandt, M. J. (2017). The political domain appears simpler to the political extremes than to political moderates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, I., Prentice, M., & Nash, K. (2013). Anxious uncertainty and reactive approach motivation (RAM) for religious, idealistic, and lifestyle extremes. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L., & Farhart, C. E. (2016). Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 824–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12234Google Scholar
Mols, F., & Jetten, J. (2017). The wealth paradox: Economic prosperity and the hardening of attitudes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The overclaiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.890Google Scholar
Rollwage, M., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2018). Metacognitive failure as a feature of those holding radical beliefs. Current Biology, 28(24), 4014–4021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutjens, B. T., Sutton, R. M., & Van der Lee, R. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.xGoogle Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toner, K., Leary, M., Asher, M. W., & Jongman-Sereno, K. P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2454–2462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613494848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bos, K. (2018). Why people radicalize: How unfairness judgments are used to fuel radical beliefs, extremist behaviors, and terrorism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2016). Sometimes inclusion breeds suspicion: Self-uncertainty and belongingness predict belief in conspiracy theories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2157Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2020). An existential threat model of conspiracy theories. European Psychologist, 25(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000381Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2017). Extreme political beliefs predict dogmatic intolerance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671403Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2019). Psychological features of extreme political ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418817755Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2020). Overclaiming knowledge predicts anti-establishment voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(3), 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619862260Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., Boiten, M., & Eendebak, L. (2015). Fear among the extremes: How political ideology predicts negative emotions and outgroup derogation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569706CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., & Emmer, J. (2018). Ideological responses to the EU refugee crisis: The left, the right, and the extremes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731501Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., & Pollet, T. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Kuijper, S. M. H. C. (2020). A comparison of extreme religious and political ideologies: Similar worldviews but different grievances. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, Article 109888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Song, M. (2020). The cultural dimension of intergroup conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology, 112(2), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12471Google Scholar
Verkuyten, M., Adelman, L., & Yogeeswaran, K. (2020). The psychology of intolerance: Unpacking diverse understandings of intolerance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420924763Google Scholar
Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C., & Atkinson, M. D. (2016). What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915621621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, A. N., & Skitka, L. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500Google Scholar
Webber, D., Babush, M., Schori-Eyal, N., et al. (2018). The road to extremism: Field and experimental evidence that significance loss-induced need for closure fosters radicalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000111Google Scholar
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000661Google Scholar
Zwicker, M., Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2020). Persistent beliefs: Political extremism predicts ideological stability over time. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(8), 1137–1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220917753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by