“Stirring it up!” Emotionality in audience responses to political speeches

Speaker-audience interaction in political speeches has been conceptualised as a form of dialogue between speaker and audience. Of particular importance is research pioneered by Atkinson (e.g., 1983, 1984a, 1984b) on the analysis of rhetorical devices utilised by politicians to invite audience applause. Atkinson was not concerned with emotionalisation in political speech-making, rather with how applause was invited in relation to group identities through ingroup praise and/or outgroup derogation. However, his theory has provided important insights into how speakers invite audience responses, and a powerful stimulus for associated research. The purpose of this article is to address the shortfall of emotionalisation research within the realm of political speeches. We begin with an account of Atkinsons influential theory of rhetoric, followed by a relevant critique. The focus then turns to our main aim, namely, how key findings from previous speech research can be interpreted in terms of emotionalisation. Specifically, the focus is on audience responses to the words of political speakers, and how different forms of response may reflect audience emotionality. It is proposed that both duration and frequency of invited affiliative audience responses may indicate more positive emotional audience responses, while uninvited interruptive audience applause and booing may provide notable clues to issues on which audiences have strong feelings. It is concluded that there is strong evidence that both invited and uninvited audience responses may provide important clues to emotionalisation - both positive and negative - in political speeches.

Epilogue

Briefly drawing together the main themes of the book in a roundup of ‘lessons learned’, the epilogue sketches out a vision for new forms of group alignment that transcend the parochialism of ancient imagistic worlds and the forms of outgroup derogation and intolerance that doctrinal systems foment, replacing them with new forms of extended fusion. These are required to address all the major challenges of the Anthropocene, including the need to recognize a shared set of human obligations, alongside our much-vaunted rights. As we strive to combat racism and fuel instead the recognition that we are all members of one species, we may also seek to extend that intuition of shared biological essence to all other outgrowths on the tree of life, with which we share a common ancestry. Joining in new rituals that emphasize these sorts of shared experiences and shared bodies will be vital because, in the end, our fates are entwined and the ritual animal is, well, just another animal.

Science through a tribal lens: A group-based account of polarization over scientific facts

Previous research has confirmed the prominent role of group processes in the promotion and endorsement of disinformation. We report three studies on a psychological framework derived from integrated threat theory—a psychological theory which describes how perceived threat leads to group polarization and prejudice—composed of the following constructs: group belongingness, perceived threat, outgroup derogation, and intergroup anxiety. Our pilot study suggested that need to belong and intergroup anxiety predict antiscientific beliefs (pseudoscientific, paranormal, and conspiracy theories), thus justifying the general applicability of integrated threat theory. Study 1 investigates the transition from weak to strong critical thinking regarding pseudoscientific doctrines. Besides greater outgroup derogation and perceived threats among strong critical thinkers, the model does not perform well in this context. Study 2 focuses on the intergroup conflict around anthropogenic global warming, revealing the strong predictive power of the model. These results are discussed in relation to the distinctive psychological profiles of science acceptance and rejection.

The impact of group membership on punishment versus partner choice

Human punishment is biased by ingroup favoritism: we tend to punish outgroup members more harshly than ingroup members. Such preferential punishment of outgroup members could reflect an influence of group membership specifically on punishment, or may reflect a general tendency to respond to outgroup members’ behavior more harshly, regardless of the type of response used. To investigate this question, we contrasted punishment with the decision to reject a partner, often termed partner choice. In two studies, participants interacted with other players in an incentivized economic game. We assigned participants to groups using a “minimal” groups paradigm (Study 1) or a consequential political position (Study 2). Across both studies, when participants could respond to their partner’s behavior with punishment, they punished outgroup members more harshly than ingroup members, replicating past work. We also extend prior work by showing that this difference principally reflects outgroup derogation rather than ingroup love, through the inclusion of neutral individuals in Study 2. In contrast, when participants could respond by either continuing to interact with their current partner or instead reject them and be paired with a new player, participants’ decisions were almost completely unaffected by group membership. Thus, group membership has a strong influence on how we punish others, but almost no influence on how we make partner choice decisions. These results shed light on the breadth of influence group membership can have, especially on how we respond to transgressions, and provide insight into the unique psychological processes supporting punishment and partner choice decisions.

Is there prejudice from thin air? Replicating the effect of emotion on automatic intergroup attitudes

Background Previous studies showed that anger, rather than sadness, created automatic intergroup bias in a minimal group context. Methods The current research reports a single study (N = 99) aiming to replicate this finding and further to test whether the intergroup bias manifests as ingroup favoritism, outgroup derogation, or both. Results Our results failed to replicate the effect of anger on automatic bias. Intriguingly, participants across all emotion conditions exhibited high level of ingroup favoritism, but there was little evidence of outgroup derogation. Conclusion These results suggest that, when there is no competition or conflict between groups, individuals, even in a bad emotional state such as anger, generally show ingroup love rather than outgroup hate.

Islamaphobic Discourse and Interethnic Conflict

This chapter examines the Islamaphobic discourse that is perpetuated by the news media coverage of the ISIS beheadings to explain the potential influence of news media on viewers' dissociative behaviors, and the justifications made by social actors for such behaviors. Specifically, this chapter seeks to explore the ways in which intragroup identities are strengthened (ingroup bias) through outgroup derogation. The authors conducted a thematic analysis of news coverage from five major news sources. Findings revealed four themes of problematic discourse: (1) naming the enemy, (2) establishing intergroup threat, (3) homogenizing Islamic peoples, and (4) accentuating the negative. The authors then describe several ways in which media can function as a buffer to alleviate intergroup hostilities through the creation of positive contact situations.

Flags on fire: Consequences of a national symbol’s desecration for intergroup relations

Desecrating a national symbol is a powerful means of protest or of showing antipathy for a national group, but how do such actions impact ingroup favoritism? We investigated this issue via two field studies conducted prior to the France versus Ireland (Study 1, N = 72) and France versus Germany (Study 2, N = 165) matches at the Euro 2016 soccer tournament. We asked French participants to imagine the ingroup/competition outgroup flag being burnt by ingroup/competition outgroup perpetrators. Imagining the ingroup flag being burnt increased proingroup bias through increase in either ingroup favoritism (Study 1) or outgroup derogation (for all outgroups, including those unconnected with the threat; Study 2). Perpetrators’ group membership did not have the expected moderating effect. We discuss the implications of these results for social identity defense strategies and for the consequences of intragroup versus intergroup threats.

Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate (or Both)? Mapping Distinct Bias Profiles in the Population

Researchers have long argued that ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation are separable phenomena that occur in different, meaningful combinations. Statistical methods for testing this thesis, however, have been underutilized. We address this oversight by using latent profile analysis (LPA) to investigate distinct profiles of group bias derived from ingroup and outgroup warmth ratings. Using a national probability sample of Māori (the indigenous people of New Zealand; N = 2,289) and Europeans ( N = 13,647), we identify a distinct profile reflecting ingroup favoritism/outgroup derogation (Type III in Brewer’s typology of ingroup bias) in both groups (6.7% of Māori, 10.3% of Europeans). The factors associated with this type, however, differed between groups. Whereas ethnic identity centrality predicted membership for Type III for Māori, social dominance orientation predicted this type for Europeans. Thus, although both groups may express the same kind of bias pattern, the motivation underlying this bias varies by status.