Even though taking part in elections is one of the most direct tools to influence the sociopolitical system, many people choose not to vote. Research shows that this problem is especially prevalent among those citizens who do not believe they have control over social and political issues, but the question remains as to what could encourage their voting behavior. We predicted that individuals who experience low levels of control can be more susceptible to ingroup norms regarding participation in political elections than those with a high sense of sociopolitical control (SPC). Across six studies, we found consistent support for this hypothesis. Specifically, people who experience decreased SPC were more likely to vote when descriptive norms (measured or manipulated) were conducive to voting. The results have important theoretical and applied implications, illuminating the boundary conditions under which people deprived of control can still be motivated to participate in a political sphere.
AbersonC. (2019). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
2.
BarthM.MassonT.FritscheI.ZiemerC.-T. (2017). Closing ranks: Ingroup norm conformity as a subtle response to threatening climate change. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217733119
3.
BondR. M.FarissC. J.JonesJ. J.KramerA. D. I.MarlowC.SettleJ. E.FowlerJ. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11421
4.
BorgM.AzzopardiA. (2021). Political interest, recognition and acceptance of voting responsibility, and electoral participation: Young people’s perspective. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(8), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2021.1902963
5.
CelioC. I.DurlakJ.DymnickiA. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591103400205
6.
ChristakisN. A.FowlerJ. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine, 32(4), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5408
7.
CialdiniR. B.DemaineL. J.SagarinB. J.BarrettD. W.RhoadsK.WinterP. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500181459
8.
CondonM.HollequeM. (2013). Entering politics: General self-efficacy and voting behavior among young people. Political Psychology, 34(2), 167–181.
9.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992337
10.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015914
11.
DarmofalD. (2010). Reexamining the calculus of voting. Political Psychology, 31(2), 149–174.
12.
de LeonR.KayA. C. (2020). Political ideology and compensatory control mechanism. Current Opinion in Behavioral Science, 34, 112–117.
13.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
14.
FowlerJ. H. (2005). Turnout in a small world. In ZuckermanA. (Ed.), The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (pp. 269–287). Temple University Press.
15.
FritscheI.JonasE.AblasserC.BeyerM.KubanJ.MangerA.-M.SchultzM. (2013). The power of we: Evidence for group-based control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.014
16.
FritscheI.JonasE.KayserD. N.KoranyiN. (2010). Existential threat and compliance with pro-environmental norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.08.007
17.
FritscheI.JonasE.KesslerT. (2011). Collective reactions to threat: Implications for intergroup conflict and for solving societal crises. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5(1), 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01027.x
18.
GailliotM. T.StillmanT. F.SchmeichelB. J.ManerJ. K.PlantE. A. (2008). Mortality salience increases adherence to salient norms and values. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 993–1003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316791
19.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633
20.
GatzM.KarelM. J. (1993). Individual change in perceived control over 20 years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16(2), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502549301600211
21.
GerberA. S.GreenD.LarimerC. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. The American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.
22.
GerberA. S.RogersT. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090117
23.
HayesA. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis a regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
24.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
25.
JonasE.FritscheI. (2012). Follow the norm! Terror management theory and the influence of descriptive norms. Social Psychology, 43(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000077
26.
JonasE.MartensA.KayserD. N.FritscheI.SullivanD.GreenbergJ. (2008). Focus theory of normative conduct and terror-management theory: The interactive impact of mortality salience and norm salience on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1239–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013593
27.
KarpJ. A.BanducciS. A. (2008). Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000161
28.
KayA. C.WhitsonJ. A.GaucherD.GalinskyA. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x
29.
KoftaM.SoralW.BilewiczM. (2020). What breeds conspiracy antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(5), 900–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000183
30.
LammersJ.StapelD. A.GalinskyA. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610368810
31.
LandauM. J.KayA. C.WhitsonJ. A. (2015). Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 694–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038703
32.
LucasJ.LovagliaM. J. (2014). Perceptions of ability and adherence to rules, guidelines, and tradition. Advances in Group Processes, 31, 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0882-614520140000031004
33.
LüdeckeD. (2018). ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772
34.
MilyavskyM.KruglanskiA. W.GelfandM.ChernikovaM.PierroA. (2020, June3). People who need people (and some who think they don’t): On compensatory personal and social means of goal pursuit. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/huyb4
35.
NickersonD. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080039
36.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instruc-tional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
37.
PanagopoulosC. (2013). Positive social pressure and prosocial motivation: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment on voter mobilization. Political Psychology, 34(2), 265–275.
38.
PaulhusD. L.ChristieR. (1981). Spheres of control: An interactionist approach to assessment of perceived control. In LefcourtH. M. (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (pp. 1–161). Academic Press.
39.
PaulhusD. L.Van SelstM. (1990). The Spheres of Control Scale: 10 yr of research. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(10), 1029–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90130-J
40.
PollockP. H. (1983). The participatory consequences of internal and external political efficacy: A research note. The Western Political Quarterly, 36(3), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/448398
41.
PotoczekA.BukowskiM.JaśkoK.CzepluchF.FritscheI.JugertP.KossowskaM. (2021). Acting collectively against air pollution: When does control threat mobilize environmental activism Manuscript submitted for publication.
42.
RodríguezR.MoyaM. (1998). España vista desde Andalucia. Estereotipos e identidad. [Spain as Seen from Andalusia: Stereotypes and Identity]. Psicología Política, 16, 27–48.
43.
RothbaumF.WeiszJ. R.SnyderS. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5
StollbergJ.FritscheI.BarthM.JugertP. (2017). Extending control perceptions to the social self: Ingroups serve the restoration of control. In BukowskiM.FritscheI.GuinoteA.KoftaM. (Eds.), Coping with lack of control in a social world (pp. 133–150). Routledge.
46.
StollbergJ.FritscheI.JonasE. (2017). The groupy shift: Conformity to liberal in-group norms as a group-based response to threatened personal control. Social Cognition, 35(4), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.374
47.
TankardM. E.PaluckE. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12022
48.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
49.
TwengeJ. M.ZhangL.ImC. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5
50.
WhiteC.BruceS.RitchieJ. (2000). Young people’s politics Political interest and engagement amongst 14–24 year olds. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
