Political psychology

Political psychology is an interdisciplinary field that bridges the gap between psychology and political science. It focuses on understanding the psychological underpinnings of political behavior, attitudes, and processes. Researchers in this field examine how individual and collective psychological factors influence political beliefs, decisions, and actions.Political orientation refers to an individual's beliefs, values, and attitudes about government, politics, and the role of the state. 

Key areas of study within political psychology include:

Political Attitudes and Ideologies: Exploring how people form, maintain, and change their political beliefs and ideologies. This includes examining the cognitive and emotional processes behind these attitudes.

Political Behavior: Investigating why individuals engage in political activities such as voting, protesting, or running for office. This area looks at both individual motivations and broader social influences.

Leadership and Personality: Analyzing the personality traits, cognitive styles, and leadership behaviors of political figures. This research aims to understand how leaders' psychological profiles affect their decision-making and governance.

Group Dynamics and Identity: Examining how group identities, social norms, and intergroup relations shape political behavior and attitudes. This includes studies on nationalism, partisanship, and political polarization.

Media and Political Communication: Investigating the role of media in shaping public opinion and political behavior. This includes the psychological effects of media exposure, propaganda, and political messaging.

Conflict and Cooperation: Exploring the psychological factors that lead to political conflict, aggression, and violence, as well as those that promote peace and cooperation. This area often involves studying negotiation, diplomacy, and reconciliation processes.

Political Socialization: Understanding how individuals acquire political beliefs and behaviors throughout their lives. This includes the influence of family, education, peers, and broader cultural contexts.

Political Orientations

Here are some common examples of political orientations:

1. Conservatism: Emphasizes tradition, social stability, and maintaining established institutions. Conservatives often advocate for limited government intervention in the economy, a strong national defense, and the preservation of cultural and religious values.

2. Liberalism: Advocates for individual rights, equality, and social progress. Liberals typically support government intervention to address social and economic inequalities, promote civil liberties, and protect the environment.

3. Libertarianism: Emphasizes individual freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government intervention in both economic and social matters. Libertarians advocate for minimal state involvement in people's lives and support free-market principles.

4. Socialism: Advocates for social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. Socialists support policies that aim to reduce economic inequalities, provide universal healthcare, and ensure social welfare programs for all citizens.

5. Progressivism: Focuses on social reform and addressing systemic inequalities. Progressives advocate for policies that promote social justice, environmental sustainability, and government intervention to address issues such as income inequality and corporate power.

6. Nationalism: Emphasizes the interests and culture of one's nation, often advocating for strong national sovereignty, cultural identity, and sometimes, restrictive immigration policies. Nationalists prioritize the welfare of their country and its citizens above international considerations.

7. Communism: Advocates for a classless, stateless society where the means of production are owned collectively. Communists support the abolition of private property and the establishment of a society based on common ownership and equal distribution of resources.

Related Posts

Orientations in Psychology

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   X  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation. 

Cult and Psychology

 

Spiritual Lights 2024 by
Geoffrey W. Sutton & Designer

In psychology, cult is an old and somewhat vague term that was used to describe a religious group having several of the following characteristics:

 High cohesiveness

 An influential and authoritarian leader

 A highly organized authoritarian structure

A high demand for group loyalty supported by coercive social power such as peer group pressure

 A set of features not commonly found in established religious groups:

Beliefs such as unique interpretations of, or based upon, an existing religious text

            Values that may be unique or rare compared to other groups

            Practices or rituals that may be unique or rare compared to other groups

Unique documents such as a new religious text

            Secretive practices or meeting places

            Hostility toward particular outgroups

An example of an analysis of religious groups and cults can be found in Galanter (2013).

 

Cult Conversion

Castaño et al. (2022) referred to cults as groups of psychological abuse (GPA) in their study of warning signs related to cult conversion based on the views of people related to group members. In their summary, they reported the following:

Analyses revealed that warning signs, vulnerability factors, and motivational elements were key drivers for understanding the process of cult recruitment and participation. Moreover, results indicated that cult conversion of an individual has measurable mental health and well-being consequences for their relatives, as family members are often left legally helpless and without access to specialized psychological support.

 

ALTERNATIVE TERMS

 

New Religious Movements (NRMs)

Psychologists and sociologists prefer the term, New Religious Movement (NRM) to identify groups having many of the characteristics and features mentioned above. In psychology, NRMs are an area of study within the Psychology of Religion, which is a subfield of Social Psychology. NRMs do not necessarily produce harmful effects. See Woody (2009) regarding the term cult and teaching about religion and spirituality.

Abusive Groups

Abusive groups is a useful term that includes both NRMs and nonreligious groups linked to harmful effects on their members. The types of harm are generally considered by assessing the wellbeing of group members in the group or after they have left the group. Abusive groups may have many of the characteristics and features previously used to describe a religious cult as described above. For an example of the harmful effects on people who former members of a group, see Antelo et al. (2021).

Violent Groups

Violent groups is a useful term that includes NRMs and nonreligious groups that perpetrate harm on members of other groups or society in general. Violent groups may include the features of abusive groups thus the harm is directed outward toward nonmembers as well as inward toward group members. For examples of research articles, see Gomez et al. (2020) and Gøtzsche-Astrup et al. (2020).

Sects versus Cults

A sect may have some features of a cult but there is an identification with a more established religious tradition. For example, sects may share some common beliefs, practices, or values in addition to their distinctive features.

Expanded use of the term cult

In the general culture, the term cult has been used to describe a variety of nonreligious groups that have many of the features of a religious cult mentioned above. For example, the groups may be primarily political, health focused, or philosophical.

 

Why Many Scientists Prefer Other Terms

1. The term cult is often used as a label to refer to groups and the people in the groups (cultists) in a negative or pejorative way. Currently, the term cult and related terms like cult leader and cultic practices are used to insult people who are strongly committed to a minority religious, quasi-religious, or other distinctive group.

2. Scientists note that some established religious groups were once considered cults. If you think about some of the newer, or even some older religious groups, you may find that several of the characteristics of a cult could apply to group members who are highly devoted to their group and believe their group offers the true path to salvation or a better nation.

3. Experts disagree on which groups should be identified as a cult, a sect, or even another religion.

4. Social concerns appear to focus on the harm done to group members or society, which requires adding adjectives like positive cults, negative cults, or benign cults, destructive cults.

Related Links

 Abuse  Spiritual or Religious Abuse

Brainwashing  Brainwashing  

 Neglect   Spiritual or Religious Neglect 

Group Polarization   Group Polarization Effect

Guilt   Psychology of Guilt 

Harassment  Spiritual or Religious Harassment  

Toxic Triad   Psychology's Toxic Triad  

RESOURCE

Find questionnaires for the measurement of religious or spiritual beliefs, practices, values, and experiences in 

Assessing Spirituality & Religiosity

Available on AMAZON      AMAZON 

References

Antelo, E., Saldaña, O., & Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á. (2021). The impact of group psychological abuse on distress: the mediating role of social functioning and resilience. European journal of psychotraumatology, 12(1), 1954776. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1954776

Castaño, Á., Bélanger, J. J., & Moyano, M. (2022). Cult conversion from the perspective of families: Implications for prevention and psychological intervention. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 14(1), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000410

 Galanter, M. (2013). Charismatic groups and cults: A psychological and social analysis. In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol. 1): Context, theory, and research (pp. 729–740). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14045-041

 Gómez, Á., Martínez, M., Martel, F. A., López-Rodríguez, L., Vázquez, A., Chinchilla, J., Paredes, B., Hettiarachchi, M., Hamid, N., & Swann, W. B. (2021). Why People Enter and Embrace Violent Groups. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 614657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614657

Gøtzsche-Astrup, O., van den Bos, K., & Hogg, M. A. (2020). Radicalization and violent extremism: Perspectives from research on group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(8), 1127-1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220970319

Olson, P. J. (2006). The Public Perception of "Cults" and "New Religious Movements." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00008.x

Woody, W. D. (2009). Use of cult in the teaching of psychology of religion and spirituality. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1(4), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016730

 

 

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   X  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation. 

 

 

 

Social loafing effect in psychology

Looking at Work 2023
Geoffrey W Sutton & Bing AI

The social loafing effect is a psychological concept based on the finding that a person expends less effort on a group task than when they work on a project alone.

The history of the social loafing effect attributed to Bibb Latané, dates to the work of max Ringelmann.

A quote from a meta-analytic review follows.

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. A meta-analysis of 78 studies demonstrates that social loafing is robust and generalizes across tasks and S populations. A large number of variables were found to moderate social loafing. (Karau & Williams, 1993)

Reference

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

assembly bonus effect in psychology

 

Working  as a group

The assembly bonus effect is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when individuals work together in a group to complete a task, leading to an increase in motivation and effort among group members. This effect is often seen in settings where individuals are rewarded based on their contribution to a group task.

A commonly cited source is Collins and Guetzkow (1964). They noted: "An assembly effect occurs when the group is able to achieve collectively something which could not have been achieved by any member working alone or by a combination of individual efforts." (p. 58)

Karau and Williams (1993) reviewed the literature on social loafing, which has identified a reduction in effort and motivation when people work in a group, which would contradict a bonus effect.

Kathleen Propp (2006) noted the lack of evidence for the assembly bonus effect and suggested the importance of how communication is understood.

The assembly bonus effect has been attributed to several factors, including social facilitation (where the presence of others enhances performance), social comparison (where individuals compare themselves to others in the group), and the need for social approval and recognition.

Researchers need to explore under what conditions a bonus effect occurs in contrast to a social loafing effect.

Reference:

Collins, E. B., & Guetzkow, H. A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: Wiley, 1964

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Kathleen M. Propp, (2003) In Search of the Assembly Bonus Effect: Continued Exploration of Communication's Role in Group Memory, Human Communication Research, 29, 600–606, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00858.x

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

 

group polarization effect

 During group discussions, people with different opinions may strengthen their opinions and assume a more extreme position.

HIPPO HIghest Paid Person's Opinion

In group studies, it is common for people of low power or status to suppress their opinion and shift to supporting the opinion of the Highest Paid Person. This can be seen as a survival strategy.

HIPPO or HiPPO is an acronym for the

Hi Highest

P paid

P person's

O opinion

HiPPO is also known as the HiPPO effect, Hippo syndrome, HiPPO culture, HiPPO management style, and the concept has been called HiPPO theory.

HiPPO effects can be seen in business closures when decisions by the top executive resulted in disaster. To avoid HiPPO disasters, decision makers in organizations need to create a psychological safe environment that permits the sharing of different opinions about products, services, and other decisions within an organization.

In the Psychology of Religion, HiPPO effects can be seen when religious leaders make decisions based on perceived divine revelation and refuse to take direction from church, school, and other organizational boards.

Reference

Kohavi, R. et al. (2007). Practical guide to controlled experiments on the Web" Listen to your customers not to the HiPPO. KDD'07. https://ai.stanford.edu/~ronnyk/2007GuideControlledExperiments.pdf 

**************************

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

***************************

Resource

A book that mentions the HiPPO problem is Think Again by Adam Grant

Book Review Link

Photo credit: I took the picture of the Hippo at the St Louis Zoo

Interpersonal Conflicts

 

Interpersonal conflicts may be relationship or task conflicts.

Relationship conflicts are marked by emotional clashes and even animosity.

Task conflicts are clashes of ideas and opinions.

In organizational studies, the worst performing teams began working on tasks with a high level of relationship conflict. High performing teams had task conflicts but low relationship conflicts.

Some task conflict is linked to higher creativity and better choices.

"The absence of conflict is not harmony, it's apathy."

Reference

Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don't know.   New York: Penguin Publishing Group, Viking.    

AMAZON

GOOGLE

Psychology of Faultlines

Faultlines is a construct described by Dora Lau and J. Keith Murnighan of Northwestern University (1998). They applied the term to understanding divisions within subgroups of organizations, which may be differentiated on the basis of attributes. The concept of faultlines is derived from geology.

Following is their definition.

"Group faultlines are hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes. (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328)."

 In their seminal article, the authors provide examples of faultlines.  Demographic faultlines may include age, race, sex, and values. Occupational roles and conservative vs. liberal values may also divide group members into subgroups.

Group faultlines may have different degrees of strength. Strength develops from three factors:

  1. The number of attributes a group recognizes
  2. The alignment of the group's attributes
  3. The number of homogeneous subgroups

The authors explain that group faultlines can be stronger when the number of attributes are highly correlated.

Different subgroups can develop based on issues that activate different characteristics.

The geological analogy
1. The various characteristics of people in groups are like various layers in the earth's crust.
2. Faultlines become evident when external forces exert pressure
3. Strong faultlines can crack, which reveals the strength of the attributes

Group diversity can lead to increased or decreased creativity and innovation depending on the type of diversity present in a group. Diversity can lead to conflict

My Comments

The concept of faultlines as a metaphor may be useful in the analysis of factors that divide people in many spheres of life like politics and religion in addition to work and educational settings.

Leaders do well to recognize the external forces that can trigger those attributes leading to splitting subgroups from each other or from the main group. Some politicians and religious leaders are adept at exerting pressure that creates splits in which key characteristics of a population align in favor of their candidacy or ideology.

Reference

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dy-namics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–40.