Mobilizing Aggression in Mass Politics

216 Pages·2012·1.14 MB·English

MOBILIZING AGGRESSION IN MASS POLITICS

by

Nathan P. Kalmoe

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Political Science)
in The University of Michigan
2012

Doctoral Committee:

Professor Donald R. Kinder, Chair
Professor Nancy Burns
Professor Nicholas A. Valentino
Associate Professor Ted Brader
© Nathan P. Kalmoe 2012
To my parents, for your boundless love and support

ii
Acknowledgements
This project was made possible by the generous funding of the Gerald R. Ford
Fellowship, which provided research funds for the first national study, along with a
stipend providing more research time. The Marsh Research Fellowship also helped fund
that data collection. The second national study was conducted with the support of Time-
Sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS), NSF Grant 0818839, Jeremy Freese
and Penny Visser, Principal Investigators. Early versions of this work were presented as
conference papers at annual meetings of the American Political Science Association
(2011) and the International Society of Political Psychology (2008, 2012). I also utilize
the invaluable American National Election Studies time-series to test dynamics over time.
Thanks to my fellow graduate students for their steadfast professional and
personal support throughout my time in the program, especially Josh Gubler, Ashley
Jardina, Dan Magleby, Pat O’Mahen, Davin Phoenix, Spencer Piston, Tim Ryan, and Liz
Suhay, and my graduate mentors Yanna Krupnikov and Adam Levine. Professors Brian
Min and Alan Stam, and grads Charles Doriean, Gary Uzonyi, and Matt Wells, were
particularly helpful for thinking through issues regarding violence in politics.
Thanks to my undergraduate advisors at the University of Wisconsin, Charles
Franklin and Kathy Cramer Walsh, who inspired me to pursue political science as a
vocation, and who helped guide me into the Michigan program. Thanks also to Cindy
Kam, who provided excellent advice at key points throughout my graduate career.
Thank you to my excellent dissertation committee – Nancy Burns, Ted Brader,
Nick Valentino, and especially Don Kinder – who provided invaluable feedback and
support. You have taught me what it means to be a political scientist, and I hope to live
up to the examples of academic excellence you have set.
Finally, thank you to my partner in life, Katie Will, who joined me early on in this
project. Your love and support has sustained me through the inevitable ups and downs of
the dissertation, but, more importantly, has enriched my life. I am forever grateful.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………v
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….vii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….viii

CHAPTERS
1. Aggressive Roots of Political Behavior………………………………………....1
2. Aggression in Mass Politics: A Theoretical Framework………………………8
3. Measuring Trait Aggression…………………………………………………...22
4. Violent Metaphors in Presidential Campaigns……………………………….42
5. Support for State Violence…………………………………………………..…66
6. Support for Violence against Political Authority……………………………..88
7. Mobilizing Electoral Participation…………………………………………...107
8. Violent Campaign Metaphors and Vote Choice…………………………….139
9. Conclusions...…………………………………………………………………..161

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………….174
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………….195

iv
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

3.1 Trait Aggression Question-Wording (BPAQ-SF)……………………………….25
3.2 Representativeness in the Ford-Marsh and TESS Studies……………………….29
3.3 Measurement Characteristics of BPAQ-SF Items……………………………….31
3.4 Correlations between the BPAQ-SF and its Subscales…………………………..31
3.5 Pearson’s Correlations: Trait Aggression in Context……………………………36
4.1 Most Frequent Violent Metaphors……………………………………………….57
4.2 Correlates of Violent Metaphors per 1000 Words……………………………….60
4.3 Violent Metaphors in Convention Speeches over Time.………………………...64
5.1 State Violence Question-Wording……………………………………………….72
5.2 Trait Aggression and State Violence Attitudes – Bivariate Model………………75
5.3 Trait Aggression and State Violence Attitudes – Multivariate Model..…………77
5.4 Ford-Marsh Study Treatments…………………………………………………...80
5.5 Violent Metaphor Effects on State Violence Attitudes………………………….82
5.6 Violent Metaphor Effects on State Violence Attitudes – Treatment Variations...84
5.7 Distributions of State Violence Items…………………………………………....87
6.1 Violence against Political Authority Question-Wording…………………..…….93
6.2 Distribution of Support for Violence against Political Authority………………..94
6.3 Effects on Violence against Political Authority Attitudes…………………….…96
6.4 Effects on Violence against Political Authority Attitudes – Ford-Marsh Items..105
6.5 Effects on Violence against Political Authority Attitudes – TESS Items……....105
6.6 Distribution of Support for Violence against Political Authority – Michigan...106
6.7 Effects on Violence against Political Authority Attitudes – Michigan Items…..106
6.8 Effects on VAPA – Michigan Treatment Variations by Partisanship..………...106
7.1 Question Wording for Electoral Participation………………………………….118
v
7.2 Violent Metaphor Effects on Electoral Participation Intentions……………….120
7.3 Metaphor Effects on Electoral Participation – The Electoral Connection……..121
7.4 Violent Metaphor Effects on Real-World Electoral Participation……………...127
7.5 Observational Analysis – Trait Aggression and Electoral Participation……….134
7.6 Violent Metaphor Effects on Real-World Turnout – Basic Model……………..138
8.1 Violent Metaphor Effects on Candidate Evaluations…………………………...148
8.2 Violent Metaphor Effects on Competitive Candidate Evaluations & Choice.....151
8.3 Effects of Violent Metaphors on Real-World Presidential Vote Choice……….156
vi
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

2.1 General Aggression Model………………………………………………………11
3.1 Distributions of the BPAQ-SF and Subscales…………………………………...32
4.1 Tally of Violent Metaphors by Party over Time…………………………………56
4.2 Tally of Violent Metaphors by Party over Time per 1000 Words….……………56
6.1 Predicted Values for Violence against Political Authority Attitudes………...….97
7.1 Violent Campaign Metaphors and Voter Turnout over Time…………….…….110
7.2 Marginal Treatment Effects on Voting Intentions……………………………...123
7.3 Marginal Treatment Effects on Real-World Voter Turnout……………………128
7.4 Marginal Effects of Trait Aggression on Voting Intentions……………………135
8.1 Violent Campaign Metaphors and Presidential Vote Choice over Time….……140
8.2 Marginal Effects of Violent Metaphors on Candidate Evaluations – TESS……149
8.3 Marginal Effects of Metaphors on Candidate Evaluations – Ford-Marsh……...150
8.4 Marginal Effects of Violent Metaphors on Competitive Candidate Choice……152
8.5 Marginal Effects of Metaphors on Real-World Presidential Vote Choice……..157

vii
Abstract

MOBILIZING AGGRESSION IN MASS POLITICS

By

Nathan P. Kalmoe

Chair: Donald R. Kinder

This is an investigation of human aggression and the surprising ways it colors
modern politics. Although aggression has always existed in human behavior, the
emergence of a peculiar new species – the democratic citizen – introduces aggression into
the newfound habitat of representative governance. This dissertation reveals the striking
breadth of aggression’s influence on mass political behavior, which ranges from intuitive
but unstudied links with violent attitudes to its unexpected impact on voting behavior.
Aggression’s dynamic effects stem from interactions between stable individual
predispositions for aggressive behavior in everyday life and the violent metaphors that
appear regularly in the language of political leaders, journalists, activists, and ordinary
citizens. Each element and outcome is grounded in the literatures of political science,
psychology, cognitive linguistics, and communication, bridging research on aggression,
metaphorical thinking, and political behavior.
For these tests, I utilize complementary methods including: 1) two nationally-
representative survey experiments and a third study to make strong, generalizable causal
inferences about communication effects, 2) content analysis of presidential nomination
acceptance speeches since 1932 to show the prevalence and variation of violent campaign
metaphors, and 3) survey analysis with fifty years of American National Election Studies
viii
data that, when merged with the content analysis, replicate the experimental results in
real-world election campaigns.
In the first empirical section, trait aggression strongly predicts support for state
violence and violence by citizens against political authority. Exposure to mild violent
metaphors substantially amplifies support for violence against political authority among
trait-aggressive citizens, but the same pattern does not appear for state violence attitudes.
In the second empirical section, I find that exposure to violent campaign
metaphors has polarizing effects on voter turnout and vote choice that hinge jointly on
individual levels of trait aggression and perceptions of government’s responsiveness to
citizens. These diverging effects are consistent with media violence research, and the
electoral consequences match the signature of emotion’s influence in politics.
Ultimately, this work provides substantial evidence supporting a new aggression
framework for interpreting political behavior, it attests to the fundamental dependence
between communication and personality effects in politics, and it uncovers new
instantiations of timeless human behaviors.
ix