The Effects of Polarization on Endorsing Non-Normative Political Action

Abstract

Why do some groups act more extreme than others in political situations? Some research has suggested that when people perceive their opponents as more extreme, they prefer conflict escalating actions over cooperation. Engaging in non-normative action can increase conflict and refers to purposeful socially disruptive actions, such as civil disobedience. Normative actions, such as voting, conform to social norms like laws or policy regulations. Past research has found that individuals are more likely to prefer non-normative action when they perceive their group as being at an unchangeable and unjust disadvantage versus their opponents. In addition to these findings, we hypothesize that those who perceive greater polarization will be more likely to endorse non-normative political action for their own group. In this correlational study, 200 undergraduate university student participants will be asked to complete an online self-report survey. The survey will measure their degree of polarization, as well as their level of support for various normative and nonnormative political actions. If our results are consistent, polarization can be considered a predictive power regarding normative and nonnormative political mobilization and can provide insight to the psychological processes involving political action and perception.

Faculty Mentor: Craig Blatz

Department: Psychology (Honours)