Asking "why?" without the blame game (Effects of militant political rhetoric)

[salvorhardin]

A fantastic post from Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education that counters some of the rampant speculation while providing some insight into the effects of militant political rhetoric. Long but worth it.

Most people reject any attempt to justify political violence, and for most people, seeing a violent political ad doesn't change that. But Sides explains:

Seeing violence political ads DID have an effect among those with a predisposition to aggression, as measured with a standard psychological battery. Among those with the greatest predisposition to aggression, being exposed to a violent political ad increased their support for political violence by about 20 points on a 100-point scale. Among those with the least predisposition to aggression, being exposed to a a violent ad actually decreased their support for violence.

This conditional relationship -- between seeing violent ad and a predisposition to aggression -- appears stronger among those under the age of 40 (vs. those older), men (vs. women), and Democrats (vs. Republicans).

Kalmoe draws the obvious conclusion from this result: "The evidence here might be sufficient to make political leaders think twice before infusing violent language into speeches and ads, particularly in situations when their audiences are already boiling over with hostility."

Sides also references a research summary by Lee Sigelman, describing a project that synthesized the narratives constructed by militant extremists globally: from Germany's Baader-Meinhof gang to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber. While no single set of traits unified each of the extremists, there were sixteen common themes, which can be constructed as this narrative:

We (i.e., our group, however defined) have a glorious past, but modernity has been disastrous, bringing on a great catastrophe in which we are tragically obstructed from reaching our rightful place, obstructed by an illegitimate civil government and/or by an enemy so evil that it does not even deserve to be called human. This intolerable situation calls for vengeance. Extreme measures are required; indeed for realizing our sacred end any means will be justified. We must think in military terms, annihilating this evil and purifying the world of it. It is a duty – we must kill the perpetrators of evil, and we cannot be blamed that we had to carry out this violence. Those who sacrifice themselves in our cause will attain glory, and in this struggle supernatural powers should come to our aid. In the end, we will bring our people to a world that is a paradise.

Link: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/01/asking_why_without_the_blame_g.php

[purrFect]

1. k&r - our M$M would rather tamp down any discussion about the role of rehtoric

these are the kinda of folks who need to be interviewed vs the talking heads who are telling everyone to shut up, or it's all in our heads :crazy:

[salvorhardin]

2. It's either that, or caterwauling on the left that it was Palin's fault

Palin's rhetoric is certainly disgraceful but the big problem is we live in a culture of extremist language coupled with desperate economic straits for many people. Palin should be called out for her language, but she ain't the only one and the MSM helps perpetuate this deranged culture by presenting language such as Palin's (or Limbaugh's or Beck's or O'Reilly's or Bachman or Angle or...) as legitimate.

The part about the 16 counter-narratives that might help reduce propensity to violence is excellent too.

[purrFect]

5. i think i would call it a teachable moment vs 'caterwauling'

thats more of a cop-out, imho.

[robinlynne]

3. Hang on. the predisposition to violence seems stronger among men, under 40,

and Democrats???????????

[salvorhardin]

6. I noticed that too

I haven't read the cited paper yet to see why that might be. It's listed at Nathan Kalmoe (the author)'s website at the University of Michigan but the link is dead. I'll see if anyone else has a copy.

Kalmoe, Nathan P. “Does Violent Political Rhetoric Fuel Support for Political Violence?” (Working paper, earlier version presented at APSA 2010).
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/kalmoe/research

[Silver Gaia]

7. This link worked for me:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1657314##

Just click on "One-Click Download" at the top to download a PDF of the paper.

[salvorhardin]

8. Thank you!

I'll have to read it tomorrow. My car's heater and blower went out today so I anticipate spending many hours at the mechanic tomorrow.

[robinlynne]

4. a great read. thank-you. Everyone read the link. It is really good.

[salvorhardin]

9. Kick. eom