We distance ourselves from completely neutral products if they are liked by people who have political views that we find disagreeable. This is shown in four studies from Linköping University, Sweden. The behaviour is reinforced if we have to make a decision when others are watching.
Political distancing affects us more deeply than was previously known and governs our choices even when it is completely irrelevant. The studies show that even chocolate can be political.
"From a social perspective, it can unfortunately be rational to distance ourselves from these neutral things, but this contributes to a more polarised society," says Arvid Erlandsson, senior associate professor at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning at Linköping University.
In four studies, researchers investigated people's attitudes to completely non-political products before and after these were linked to people or groups with different political views. As far as is known, this is the first time such an investigation has been conducted. The results have been presented in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin .
The first study concerned clothing. The more than 600 participants were first shown a number of pictures of people wearing formal clothes. The heads of the people were hidden. Participants were asked to give their opinion on the design, fit and colour of the clothes and how much they would want to buy them. They were also asked their views on political parties. They then had to re-evaluate the clothes, but this time the faces of the people wearing them were visible. It turned out that the faces belonged to well-known Swedish politicians.
This clearly affected the results in the second round. Clothes worn by a politician from the participants' least liked party were now more often perceived as less stylish than in the first assessment.
In the next study, more than 800 participants first gave scores to eight well-known chocolate brands and stated their political stance. They were then divided into groups for a second round. One group was told that a previous pilot study showed that their political opponents liked a particular chocolate the best. A second group was instead told which kind their own side preferred. They then made a new assessment.
It turned out that chocolate that was liked by political opponents had now become significantly less appealing. However, varieties that were liked by their own side did not become more popular.
"It's less about you associating with what your own side likes and more about avoiding what's liked by the opposing side," summarises Arvid Erlandsson.
A third study similarly examined willingness to donate money to various charities. More than 1,200 people participated and the results were the same as in the previous studies. Participants were less likely to give money to organisations they were told were preferred by political opponents.
The researchers think that we unconsciously behave this way to maintain a consistent self-image. What the participants did not know was that the pilot study showed that everyone – regardless of their political affiliation – had actually liked the same chocolate varieties and the same charities.
In the last study, 1,295 people participated. They also had to choose between products, but with a difference. One group made their choices while being observed by animated faces they were told belonged to their own political grouping. It turned out that the tendency to distance oneself from products liked by political opponents was further reinforced. The researchers' conclusion is that we attach great importance to how we appear to others.
"Knowing about it might make you think twice, instead of just going on a gut feeling," says Arvid Erlandsson.
