How Politics and Media Weaponize our Political Psychology
…and How the Success of that Weaponization is Decidedly Asymmetrical
When given the opportunity to give a TED Talk inspired by my book Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States, I landed on the following:
- Political ideology as aesthetic: My explanatory theory, rooted in political psychology, which accounts for how and why liberals and conservatives create and consume such distinct political programming and messaging, such as ironic satire among liberals and opinion-based political talk (also called “outrage programming”) among conservatives.
- The exploitation of ideology as aesthetic: My normative claims about how and why media economics and political forces reinforce and codify psychological differences between the left and the right towards division and hate.
- Call to action: We need to create the context ourselves: How we, as individuals, must try to engage with one another outside of the dominant political and media context to create relationships that do not situate our political identities at the center.
But, there is an additional point — a huge point — that is significantly more complicated to outline in 8 minutes. That is, how the asymmetrical psychological profiles of the left and right render the implications of this exploitation far more dire for conservatives than for liberals. This is the normative argument I struggle with, and which my friend C.W. Anderson rightly identifies as the “deep tension” at the heart of my book.
In his recent review for the academic journal Journalism, Dr. Anderson writes:
[Irony and Outrage] is airtight when it comes to the claims it advances and the larger empirical methods used to ground them. And yet it also seems to me that there is a deep tension at the heart of the book, not so much at the empirical but at the normative level. It is torn between its desire to be genuinely sympathetic to the conservative point of view and an argument that, when boiled down to its essence, amounts to the claim that because conservatives are psychologically “different” they lack the ability to appreciate more nuanced forms of political satire and thus default to anger.
He’s right. It is airtight (wink) and I am torn.
In the sections that follow, I summarize my first three propositions and spend time exploring that “deep tension.” The hope is to bring clarity to these arguments with a goal of improving societal and democratic health.
Political Ideology as Aesthetic
After over a decade spent studying the impact of late-night political jokes on attitudes, behaviors and knowledge, there was one question that I could not escape: “Why is political satire so liberal?” Irony and Outrage is my best attempt at answering this question. To do so I drew heavily from political psychological research which indicates that social and cultural liberals and conservatives tend to have different psychological profiles when it comes to comfort with uncertainty and information processing motivations. These differences stem from how we monitor for and respond to threats in our environments. Those who are more acutely aware of threat tend to be less tolerant of uncertainty, preferring order, predictability, and routine. These proclivities are a manifestation of “threat management” strategies. After all, if you’re trying to avoid threats, seeking order, predictability and routine is probably one smart way to help you achieve that goal. Those who are less concerned with threats are more open to new experiences and more tolerant of ambiguity.
These distinct levels of comfort with the novel, uncertain, and ambiguous are accompanied by distinct approaches to information processing as well. Those for whom threat is particularly salient are more likely to prioritize efficiency in their decision-making process. They rely on intuition and instinct, and are less motivated to think just for the sake of thinking. But those for whom the world is perceived as a less dangerous place? They enjoy taking their time, ruminating for hours, solving riddles and chewing on the pros and cons of various potential courses of action.
The threat-conscious folks in this description are those who tend to be more socially and culturally conservative. Their views on crime, immigration, race, and sexuality are typically accompanied by a lower “tolerance for ambiguity” and decision making rooted in heuristics and cognitive shortcuts. The less threat-conscious folks are those who are more socially and culturally liberal. Their more progressive views on these issues are usually coupled with higher “tolerance for ambiguity” and “need for cognition.”
Researchers from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln theorize that liberalism and conservatism result from different physiological and biological systems (likely stemming from genetics) that cause us to have certain needs and motivations when engaging with the world — needs and motivations that social psychologists call “tolerance for ambiguity” and “need for cognition” among others. These scholars explain how these same traits that shape political beliefs might also shape our preferences for art and music.
The study of aesthetic preferences has a long history of scholars trying to untangle why and how different people come to perceive different stimuli as pleasing or beautiful. This work indicates that artistic and musical preferences are indeed different on the cultural left and the cultural right — and that these differences are not merely due to socialization, but also due — in part — to differences in tolerance for ambiguity.
I argue that political communication scholars need to begin thinking about political messaging as a form of aesthetic, as the manner in which we express ourselves and the political aesthetics that attract and repel us are shaped by these underlying traits. And this is why ironic satire (like John Oliver, Trevor Noah, and Seth Meyers) is the natural extension of the psychology of liberalism — incomplete, ambiguous, layered, complex, hybrid (part entertainment and part information). It is also why political opinion talk shows, what Jeff Berry and Sarah Sobieraj call “outrage programming” (like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh) are the natural extension of the psychology of conservatism — didactic, clear, hyperbolic, simple, efficient, and above all — threat oriented.
From Explanatory to Normative
Where my work transitions from explanatory (explaining how and why things are) to normative (arguing how they ought to be), is in how I think and talk about the implications of these relationships. From my perspective, these distinct propensities themselves — for some of us to approach the world motivated by protection, security, and predictability while others approach the world motivated by openness, experimentation, and novelty — these are just fine. These are quite wonderful, in fact.
Some of us work for stability and security while others explore, innovate, and create. The former make society stable and safe for the latter, while the latter create the ideas, culture, and beauty worth protecting and saving. Some of us are driven by responsibility and duty and others by curiosity and opportunity. We are varied organisms, with varied motivations and values, who engage in varied behaviors, to help our communities, societies, and even our species thrive.
My thinking in this area has been inspired by the work of Jonathan Haidt, by my upbringing in libertarian New Hampshire, and by my two husbands: my exceedingly ambiguity-tolerant late husband Mike and my protection-oriented current husband, PJ.
A Tale of Two Husbands
If you’ve listened to my TED Talk, or read my Vox piece, you know that I was widowed at 30. My late husband, the improv comedian and graphic designer, Mike Young, died in 2006 after months of hospitalizations and surgeries from a brain tumor. Mike’s defining characteristics were his playfulness, his openness, and his tolerance for uncertainty — which he emphasized in our improvisational work — and in our marriage. When I was a young improviser, he suggested that when I got on stage, I had a habit of “scripting the scene.” He suggested that I try to “trust my scene-mates” and try to respond only to the last offer given. Learning to trust, and be open, and listen… these helped me become a better improviser — and a better partner.
When he was diagnosed with a brain tumor, I shut down. I struggled with how “unfair” it was and spent hours trying to figure out why he had a tumor and where it had come from. But, Mike did not. He took each day as it came. He was grateful for friends. And as the tumor stole his vision, short term memory (think “Memento” but without the ability to use notes due to blindness), and meta-cognition (meaning, he did not know what his cognitive limitations were), all Mike had was his profound love of friends and family, his delicious and ironic sense of humor, and the present moment.
In recent years, as I began studying “tolerance for ambiguity,” I was struck by how much Mike embodied this trait — not just in his illness, but in his life. He loved to travel to new places. He loved unconventional cuisine, abstract art, and ironic humor. He changed plans spontaneously just to see what might happen next. And he shunned social convention. When we got married, I had to work hard to get him to understand that I really wanted to take his name. “But, why would you take my name? Why doesn’t society ask me to take your name?” I had to work hard to convince him that we should baptize our baby boy because it was important to my family. (“But… why? For what?”)
For Thanksgiving we did have a sort of “un-tradition:” a “Friendsgiving” where we would invite all the people who had nowhere to go and we would eat a different main dish every year: Cornish game hens, duck, beef wellington, but never turkey.
Mike’s openness to whatever might come next was the gift he gave me. I knew that he would want me to move forward after he died in July 2006. I knew he would want his baby boy and me to explore and play, and to find love and joy.
And we did. In late November 2007, I went on a date with a 27 year old man named PJ. He grew up not far from where he now lived. He was well-read, curious, thoughtful, and funny. He was family oriented with a strong sense of responsibility, the middle child of five kids who were all close friends and lived nearby. PJ dated me with eyes wide open about what it was he was signing up for. And he was all in. And he has been all in since that moment. We married in 2009 and he adopted our son in 2010 immediately after the birth of our daughter.
PJ is high in need for closure, order, and familiarity. He needs his space to be tidy. His days are structured. His clothing preferences are simple and consistent. He eats the same foods every day. He likes routine. PJ is also a criminal prosecutor who prides himself in serving his community in a way that keeps people safe from people who do terrible things. And working in the homicide unit, people do, indeed, do terrible things. He is playful, but also morally serious with a deep sense of responsibility and duty — to family and community.
But, PJ is also someone who is especially high in need for cognition. He reads academic books from disparate fields (physics, history, neuroscience, and sociology), and prefers the written word to visual media.
And, although he prefers order and predictability, he must not be that high in need for closure. After all, he lives in a home where two different wedding pictures sit atop the mantel. One of his wedding day, and one of his wife’s wedding day to her late husband, who is the biological father to PJ’s beloved son.
And, PJ is a vegetarian, so he doesn’t eat turkey at Thanksgiving either.
So, really, using Mike and PJ as the embodiment of these two distinct psychological profiles that accompany liberalism and conservatism is admittedly forced. They aren’t examples of “liberalism” and “conservatism” but merely of some of the traits that accompany those ideologies. But, living with and loving them has offered me ample opportunity to consider how both approaches to the world have value.
Think about this: Mike’s skills as an improviser are consistent with traits that guided his day to day: playful, un-tethered, unconventional. Traits that helped him approach months of uncertainty with openness and peace. But, I sometimes wonder if my playful, un-tethered, non-conventional late husband would have considered dating a widow with a baby. I say that not to criticize him (obviously), but to highlight how the psychological traits that made him a brilliant improviser and helped him approach his illness in a positive way— might have shaped other decisions as well. Similarly, it seems fitting to me that the guy who embraces routine and order, who wears the same four Johnny Cash t-shirts most days, who is a committed son, brother, spouse and father, is also someone who works for the protection, security, and stability of his community.
But, let’s be honest: PJ would never take an improv class. Like… ever.
My takeaway from my life with both of these men and their unique approaches to the world is that these sets of traits are vastly different, but equally wonderful, and equally necessary.
The Exploitation of Political Psychology
I propose that the danger then, is not caused by our underlying psychological differences, but in the strategic exploitation of these differences by political and media elites.
…our dominant context right now — our political and media context — requires that our political identities and the affinities and aversions that come with them be fixed, reinforced, and weaponized.
As Dr. Lilliana Mason chronicles in Uncivil Agreement, in today’s American political climate, liberals and conservatives are more socially, culturally, racially, and even geographically distinct than ever before. This “social sorting” of our political parties has linked political party and ideology to primal aspects of group identity, hence contributing to political polarization and hatred of the other side.
And our dominant context right now — our political and media context — requires that our political identities and the affinities and aversions that come with them be fixed, reinforced, and weaponized. That is how the economics of these media systems operate. Algorithms depend on the predictability and valence of our inclinations. And it’s far easier to find us and please us and put us in the appropriate box if these inclinations are are clear and extreme.
In an Op-Ed in The Washington Post, my friend, UNC Assistant Professor Dr. Shannon McGregor and I make the case for the regulation of Facebook micro-targeting of political advertising. Rooted in historical media theory, we explain how the very features of analog broadcast media that used to make it impossible for American media systems to serve as a successful mechanism for mass propaganda campaigns, are now beautifully suited to propaganda success. Social media platforms, Facebook in particular, encourage individuals to create curated information spaces where ideological information can monopolize their personalized newsfeeds. Through micro-targeting, Facebook can guarantee that your custom political ads, or memes, or “jokes” are reaching precisely those folks who would be predisposed to respond to them- and they can do so in our preferred messaging aesthetic.
And because of the horizontal, networked nature of digital technology, platforms like Facebook facilitate interpersonal communication. And while interpersonal communication can encourage grassroots activism in a positive democratic sense, it can also create a context (especially through FB Pages and in FB Groups) in which beliefs and attitudes are reinforced and crystallized. As Dr. Jamie Settle has found, through consumption of like-minded news, encouragement of emotional reactions, and promotion of politically-centered discussion, Facebook exacerbates political polarization and hatred of the “other side.” And, as Kathleen Hall Jamieson details in Cyberwar, these same dynamics are exploited by nefarious foreign actors (e.g.; Russia) to undermine American institutions, practices, and elections.
It turns out that delivering ideological arguments in our preferred messaging aesthetic is a financially lucrative and politically savvy endeavor. Last Fall, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg claimed that political ads would only constitute .5% of Facebook’s annual profits, a number that only included ads run by politicians — not by SuperPACs or issue ads. Even so, with an annual profit of about $66 billion, that underestimate of .5% alone would bring Facebook about $400 million in annual ad revenue.
The Asymmetrical Weaponization of Political Psychology
Where this argument becomes too complicated to make clearly in an 8 minute talk is in my assertion that the success and negative implications of this weaponization are decidedly asymmetrical. The symbiotic relationship between a conservative psychology and a conservative messaging aesthetic is perfectly suited to political mobilization and divisive “othering” in a way that liberal psychology and message aesthetics are not.
As I write in Irony and Outrage,
When Jacques Ellul wrote about hate as the most profitable resource of agitation propaganda…he was talking about didactic, emotion-filled (typically hate- and anger-filled) speech. Speech that explicitly identifies out-groups and threats and that proposes specific courses of action. Speech that is cloaked in moral certainty and purports to present an unequivocal truth. Ellul described such propaganda as producing “rapid and spectacular effects” and as the preferred propaganda of elites seeking war or social upheaval. “Propaganda of agitation unleashes an explosive movement; it operates inside a crisis or actually provokes the crisis itself.”… The underlying logic and aesthetic of [conservative] outrage make it an ideal mechanism for tactical, goal-driven political mobilization. Importantly, though, it is the symbiosis between outrage and the underlying psychology of social and cultural conservatism that renders conservative outrage especially fruitful as an avenue for strategic political persuasion (Irony and Outrage, p. 210).
And sadly, the technological mechanisms available to actively exploit the psychology of our threat-oriented friends are unlike any we’ve seen in the history of civilization. That sounds hyperbolic, but it is not.
Over at conservative threat-centered cable network Fox News Channel, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham have perfected the conservative outrage aesthetic and have been rewarded by high ratings — and financial success. The appeal of this kind of programming for their socially and culturally conservative audience is not an accident. It is the result of socially, culturally, and racially divisive content delivered in the ideal aesthetic package — a package designed to clearly and efficiently provide our threat-minded friends with readily available targets and clear courses of action.
And then, of course, there’s Facebook.
In an interview with New York Magazine, co-founder of the conservative anti-Trump Super-PAC, The Lincoln Project, Rick Wilson, described Facebook as “…the most meaningful tool of political manipulation ever devised in the history of all mankind.” He continued,
“It has a suite of tools that allows you to segment and target your audience in ways that are enormously granular. You can voter-file match people. You can now go out and match the cable and the Rentrak data to a lot of the Facebook data that’s available, and it lets you silo a person, not a demographic group. With cable, I can get you down into your neighborhood and your household somewhat. With Facebook, I can make sure that the ads following you on your phone and on your computer and on your tablet are all telling you that unless you vote for Donald Trump, antifa is coming to kill your dog.”
For whom would such appeals be most effective? For someone who is motivated by exploration and play and openness? Or for someone who is monitoring for threats in their environment, driven by the goals of protection and stability?
Put simply,
“…Through the aesthetics of outrage, the psychology of conservatism is more readily exploited by those seeking political power, financial reward, and cultural dominance.” (Irony and Outrage)
For almost a century, media effects research has demonstrated that the greatest persuasive effects of media messages (given exposure) tend to occur among the least educated. These effects have been explained in terms of the lack of ability to critically engage with messages that accompanies a lack of education. For social and cultural conservatives, though, it’s not a lack of cognitive ability that guides information processing. Rather, these folks who are higher in need for closure and lower in need for cognition simply have less cognitive motivation to scrutinize such information. These protection-oriented media consumers will be drawn to trusted (partisan) sources, and will be efficiently moved by clear threat-oriented appeals and emotional cues. And the entities seeking to mobilize these citizens know this is true.
Creating the Context
So yes, there is indeed a “deep tension” in the book. But it’s not a tension over whether political conservatism is inherently bad. We, as a society cannot survive without those members who are working for our collective protection, stability, and security. Instead, it is a tension relating to how the primacy of political identity and political psychology in our professionalized political and media world leaves conservatives more susceptible to divisive and mobilizing messaging effects. It’s a tension over how to embrace our neighbors whose traits help us survive threat and crisis, while watching as those same traits create fertile ground where strategically cultivated seeds of cultural, racial, and gender divisiveness are sown. It’s a tension over how to embrace the concept of individual human agency, while watching as the economics, affordances, and incentives of our political and media environment reify these patterns and divisions.
I mean shunning language steeped in political symbolism and primal identity-based appeals, and relating to individuals based on shared values and interests: love of family, experiences of pain and loss, and the trials and tribulations of everyday life.
I have been called overly optimistic. But, I’m certain that it is this same tireless optimism that allowed me to survived those terrible months in 2005–2007. And yes, I remain optimistic even now. I am convinced, for example, that the way for us to remedy these issues is for us to individually work to escape the contexts that emphasize, reinforce, and weaponize our political identities and psychological profiles. This is what I mean when I say “what if we create the context.” I mean engaging with individuals outside of politicized spaces like homogeneous, identity-reinforcing Facebook groups and echo-chambers (read: Fox News). I mean shunning language steeped in political symbolism and primal identity-based appeals, and relating to individuals based on shared values and interests: love of family, experiences of pain and loss, and the trials and tribulations of everyday life.
