Understanding the psychological appeal of populism

Abstract

Psychology can play an important role in expanding our understanding of the demandside of populism by revealing its underlying relational logic. Social psychological perspectives on populism are beginning to show how: 1) the division between us ('the good people') and them ('the corrupt elites'/'foreign others') taps into core intergroup dynamics, 2) economic and cultural processes are construed in terms of basic status concerns, and 3) collective emotions become mobilised through political communication. Taking these insights into consideration, we reflect on psychology's contribution to the study of populism thus far, and chart out an ambitious role for it at the heart of this interdisciplinary field.

Unpacking the social psychology of populism: A brief introductory note

“…That is, while scholars agree on the main features of populist leaders' discourses and rhetoric, it is still not clear how voters internalize these discourses and what psychological factors account for that. Obradovic and colleagues (2020) elaborate on the importance of psychology in the effort to understand the demand side of populism, focusing on three main factors: the classic social psychological division between us and them (i.e., social categorization and intergroup dynamics); economic and cultural processes related to status concerns; and collective emotions that are mobilized in political communication.…”

“…Taking the European context as an example, voting for populist parties in national elections increased from about 7 per cent to more than 25 per cent since 2000; the number of European countries with populist parties in the government has also increased, from two countries 20 years ago to 11 countries by 2019 (Grindheim, 2019). The interest of psychology scholars in understanding populism and factors associated with it has also increased over the past decade (e.g., Bettache & Chiu, 2018; Mols & Jetten, 2016, 2020; Obradovic et al., 2020; Reicher & Haslam, 2017). This could be the consequence of observing current socio‐political events around the world that highlight evidently the appeal of populism on politics and beyond.…”

“…At first glance, we can see classic social psychological processes of self‐categorization, influence, and politicized social identities at the core of populism (see also Aslanidis, 2020). Obradovic and colleagues (2020) recently offered an interesting psychological approach to populism, highlighting the importance of psychology to help understand the demand side of populism. While most research has focused on the supply side of populism, examining political parties' manifestos and discourses of political leaders, less is known about the demand side, specifically about populist attitudes and what explains them (Hawkins et al, 2020).…”

No Obvious Home: the Public’s Dialogical Creation of Home During the Third Wave of Decolonization

“…Populism mobilizes along two Manichean binaries; a vertical—ordinary people versus corrupt elite—binary and a horizontal—true people versus the Other—binary, pointing to the importance of conceptualizations of the people. Studies investigating this have tended to focus on the dynamics of intergroup conflict and antagonistic reasoning (Spruyt, Keppens, & Van Droogenbroeck 2016 ; for review see Obradović, Power & Scheely-Skeffington 2020 ). These survey-led studies reveal the psychological processes which support boundary-making amongst individuals.…”

“…the pandemic) rather leaders “go to great lengths to cultivate threat perceptions” (Mols & Jetten 2014 , p.84). Such threat perceptions can then find an audience with susceptible publics (Staerklé & Green, 2018 ) who respond with antagonistic/conflictual thinking (Spruyt et al, 2016 ; Obradović, Power & Scheely-Skeffington, 2020 ) and hyper-partisanship (Singh, 2017 ). Hyper-partisanship is central to both vertical forms of populism of “corrupt elites” versus the people and horizontal forms of populism of the “true people” versus the Outsiders as Others (Mahendran, English & Nieland, 2021 ; Mudde, 2019 ).…”