As we found out in the previous chapter, in a political campaign, management efforts are aimed at creating motives for the object of influence to become involved in one or another type of political activity. If a person does not want to go to the polling station and cast his vote for a certain candidate, then you cannot force him to do this. The task is to convince a person to make the desired political choice, or to seduce him to do so. However, in order to realize this opportunity in any of the proposed options, it is necessary to know how beliefs are formed, how motives appear that push people to certain actions.
Basic theories of motives for political behavior:
· Long gone is the behaviorist (behavioural) model – summarized in the formula “STIMULUS -> RESPONSE”. If you look at it en masse, problems arise - not everyone responds to the stimulus to the same extent.
· The theory of needs - the motive is aimed at satisfying needs. Maslow's theory (pyramid) - at the bottom of the pyramid are physical needs, the second level is safety needs, the third level is the need to join a group, the next level is self-esteem needs, and finally, the highest level is self-realization needs. Criticism is about pyramids - precisely in the construction system, it seems like a higher need cannot arise if a lower level need is not satisfied. In reality this is not the case.
· If previous theories arose before WW2, then after it a wave of new theories appeared - theories of electoral behavior, and now there are 3 main theories, and they were created not only on the basis of inferences, but also on rich empirical experience. The reasons for the emergence of research on voting behavior: it is repeatable + mercantile reasons (people are interested in knowing who will vote for whom). Theories:
o Structuralist/sociological – the assumption that in society there are stable objective structures that have a strong impact - status, group, social affiliation + the influence of religious affiliations. As the middle class began to strengthen, social affiliation began to influence their political choices less => interest in this theory began to fade
o Socio-psychological – “Michigan theory” - is based on an empirically proven conclusion: if a person has formed certain attitudes, then they will certainly manifest themselves during the voting process. They also created tools that allow you to take measurements. Everything was fine as long as we were talking about the USA. But in other countries this did not always work - people did not consider themselves adherents number of parties, or were against everyone (70% - undecided, 30% can be predicted)
o Rational choice theory – could only arise in the USA. 3 important points: 1) a person always strives for a certain goal, which is determined by the standards “beneficial or not profitable”; 2) recognition that a person is able to adequately evaluate information about the situation in which he finds himself and is able to choose adequate ways to achieve a goal; 3) minimizing efforts to achieve goals. The criticism is this: a rational person does not go to the polls at all (“my vote does not decide anything, then why waste my personal time”). This theory gives election organizers a good hint: if the situation in the country is stable, people feel protected, then they will vote retrospectively (for those who provided wealth and stability), if there is a crisis, then they will vote prospectively (that is, for the opposition) .
At the end of the 20th century, the logic of information influence began to be studied. 2 theories:
· Contextual theory– a person, his behavior and consciousness are formed due to the fact that he establishes communication relationships. Within this approach, it was indicated that differences in views are determined by the ability of people to build their own communication channels. A person checks information from the media by talking about this information in his closest circle. But how does a person interpret information from the environment? The phenomenological vacuum cleaner theory explored this issue.
· Cognitive theory of motivation. The main thesis of the authors of cognitive theories (from English. cognitive-cognitive) was the belief that an individual’s behavior is guided by knowledge, ideas, opinions about what is happening in outside world, about causes and consequences. Every person is influenced by external information. And what a person does and how he does it ultimately depends not only on his fixed needs, deep and eternal aspirations, but also on relatively changeable ideas about reality.
The cognitive dissonance is a contradiction between external information and internal belief. A person usually gets out of cognitive dissonance in this way: he ignores external information. Some people become even more convinced that they are right. In order to overcome and change cognitive dissonance, a person must make certain internal efforts. Reconsidering your views requires inner work. Sometimes it is overcome when information that does not correspond to beliefs is given by a significant communicator.
People's behavior can be influenced by certain types of information; election campaigns are based on the injection of certain information.
Motivation for political behavior
Each form of political behavior (typical or individual) is based on a certain motivation. Motive (from Latin moveo - I move) is a material or ideal object, the achievement of which is the meaning of activity. The motive exists in the form of specific experiences (positive emotions from the expectation of achieving a given object or negative emotions associated with the incompleteness of the present situation), rational, conscious needs or irrational, purely psychological manifestations. Motivation political activity It is rarely associated only with the political sphere. It has an extremely deep social nature and is determined by numerous, diverse factors.
Deep level of education political motivation can be considered the biopsychological characteristics of each individual. The most important ones include the following:
Volitional attitudes (will is a person’s ability to achieve his goals in the conditions of overcoming obstacles),
Degree of emotionality
Impulsivity of behavior,
The relationship between rational and irrational factors of motivation,
Temperament (temperament - individual tempo and rhythm mental processes, degree of stability of feelings),
Reactive thresholds (threshold is the magnitude of the stimulus, upon reaching which an individual’s reaction to it occurs),
The presence or absence of aggressiveness as a special form of self-affirmation,
The degree of psychological self-sufficiency,
Phobias or manias that have deep, biopsychological roots.
Along with the manifestation of deeply personal psychological characteristics, political activity also characterizes objectively existing, stable lines of interaction between a person and various components of the social system, including the political system. These interactions create external, social and institutional factors of political motivation. Depending on the level of education and the action of these factors, they can be divided into macroenvironment (state, class, stratum, nation, cultural community) and microenvironment (institutional group communities, informal group communities, family, educational institutions, individuals). Experiencing the influence of these factors and reacting to them, the individual not only corrects internal motivational attitudes, but also acquires special, extrapersonal characteristics. Among them are:
Status is the stable position of an individual in social structure, creating certain rights and obligations, opportunities and prohibitions (and, as a result, behavioral stereotypes);
A role is a special way of behavior that reflects obligatory, desirable or possible standards behaviors characteristic of a particular social community, institution, structure, type of activity;
A form of behavior is a complex of consciously chosen or externally imposed behavioral models.
The analysis of the motivation of political behavior is based on fundamental patterns studied psychological science. Thus, the generally accepted classification of motives proposed by D. McLelland and J. Atkinson, who distinguish three main motives: the motive of power, the motive of achievement, the motive of affiliation (the desire to be with others). Sometimes the motive of power is supplemented by the motivation of control, which is the fourth in this scheme.
Analysis of these approaches to the motivation of political behavior indicates the advisability of identifying and taking into account these motives.
In the psychological concept of D. McLelland we're talking about not only about political power, but also about power in the family, in relationships at work, and in other areas of life. Power is a certain value that all people strive to possess to one degree or another. But there are people for whom this need dominates others, and then the desire to achieve power becomes the highest value for them.
Conventionally, we can distinguish three types of reasons why power may be desired: to dominate others and (or) to limit the actions of others; so that other people do not dominate him and (or) interfere in his affairs; to realize political achievements.
The motive of control over people and situations is a modification of the motive of power. Political psychologists give this motive special meaning, since they believe that behavior in politics is directly related to the development of this psychological indicator. It is known that as a person reaches social maturity, he learns to control his own behavior, this gives him a sense of self-confidence and expands the boundaries of possible participation in various spheres of life, including politics.
The achievement motive is manifested in political behavior, in concern for perfection, mastery, in the desire to achieve set goals with maximum effect. This motive can make a person a careerist, but it can also be found in an unselfish politician whose behavior is determined by his desire for the public good. Achievement-motivated politicians view other people or groups in their environment as helping or hindering their own achievements. At the same time, they prefer to be independent and avoid such interpersonal relationships that could lead them to dependence.
Thus, two types of motivational schemes are distinguished: motivation to avoid failure is higher than motivation to achieve success; motivation to achieve success, which is higher than motivation to avoid failure. This is a typical motivational behavior pattern of real political leaders.
Affiliation motives also manifest themselves in political behavior. They determine friendly, warm relationships with others. For a politician, a developed motivation for affiliation will make approval from a partner during negotiations, a friendly climate and the presence of a team of like-minded people important. For ordinary citizens, affiliation motivation largely determines belonging to political organizations, which not only defend certain interests, but also give a feeling of unity and security.
Thus, an analysis of the political culture of political subjects indicates that it determines the nature of their political activity. It represents a synthesis of the formed consciousness, the developed mentality and the political behavior determined by them. Therefore, to form a political culture, it is important to systematically master all the noted components.
In order to understand the essence of this or that political step by the leaders of our state, we must find out why such steps were taken, what goals the politician set when taking such a step, and what benefits he will receive as a result of such actions.
To understand this mechanism of political actions, we must analyze the motivation for political activity.
When we begin to find out why a person chooses this or that type of political behavior, it turns out that all the same mechanisms are at work here that we studied earlier, talking about the needs and motives in people’s political relations.
Central here is the category of need as the basis for motivating political activity. As you remember, for the first time an attempt to systematize needs that can be recognized and act as motives human activity, undertaken by the American psychologist A. Maslow.
All these needs can act as motives for political behavior. When considering motivation along the lines of material needs, if we are talking about the passive, verbal, electoral political behavior of the masses, then it will be directly related to what material needs of the individual (according to his perception) will be satisfied as a result of this or that political choice. At the level of active political behavior, a person goes into politics to improve his financial situation.
Motivation along the lines of the need for security gives rise, as a rule, to the orientation of political behavior towards a strong personality, which is associated with the concept of “order”. If a person chooses non-participation, then in this case it may be due to the fear that political action will entail some kind of sanctions from the authorities. The need for security, as a rule, determines passive or verbal forms of political behavior. If it is associated with active political behavior, then the person will choose parties or organizations with strict organizational structure and a clearly defined leader-chief with whom he can identify.
The need for communication (a way of interacting with other people) is realized in the form of active political behavior or, most likely, in the form of so-called “near-political behavior”, when, as a result of the fact that a person moves in political circles, he occupies a certain social status in society .
The need for assessment at the verbal level can be realized, for example, when people, speaking about politics, try to demonstrate knowledge of something that is unknown to others. The need for validation from others in such situations often contributes to the spread of rumors. They are distributed in order to increase their self-esteem. The personality immediately conveys to others what they want to hear. At the electoral and active level it is specific form a political activist who is less interested in the goals of the organizations, and more in demonstrating himself and his activity. In this case, the individual may forget about the goals of the organization and its actions may contradict them. A person who is oriented towards evaluation by others is often more inclined to participate in informal forms of political behavior in order to demonstrate his difference from others.
Her actions can be expressed by the formula: “I’m not like everyone else, that’s why I’m the best.”
The need for self-expression through politics gives rise to political activists and, to a lesser extent, administrators, since administrative activities do not provide such personal results. Self-expression requires results.
There is another specific motive for political behavior, which is studied within the framework of psychoanalysis and is associated with the problem of an inferiority complex.
In the classical psychoanalysis of S. Freud, the problem of the inferiority complex is mentioned, but not specifically analyzed. This problem was developed by one of S. Freud’s students, A. Adler, and after he formulated his theory, his paths with S. Freud diverged, and he continued his research in his own version.
A. Adler himself and his followers proceeded from the fact that a person satisfied with himself does not feel an inferiority complex (an individual’s internal dissatisfaction with himself and, as a consequence, the desire to compensate for this by acquiring power over other people) and, accordingly, should not engage in politics. Political activity is one of the options being considered to compensate for some kind of inferiority complex. K. Adler studied various complexes, especially male ones. One of the options for compensating for an inferiority complex is through politics, i.e. desire for power. Feeling inferior, worse than others in some respects (for example, physical characteristics), a person seeks to compensate for this by acquiring power over other people. This can be done not necessarily through politics, but it can raise the social status of an individual above all else. A. Adler believed that everyone has an inferiority complex and each person compensates for his complex to one degree or another through the sphere of activity available to him.
Need as a motive for behavior (including political behavior) operates indirectly. In order for a need to become a motive for activity, we must form an idea of the goal in our minds. And for this it is necessary to take into account categories such as values and attitudes.
The same need can motivate various shapes political behavior or the same political behavior may be the result of different needs. Based on behavior as such, without special analysis, we cannot draw a conclusion about what need underlies it. Needs act not directly, but indirectly, through the process of goal setting (the value system of the hierarchy, on the basis of which Maslow’s pyramid of needs is built). This is the essence of motivation for an individual’s political activity.
When analyzing the phenomenon of political participation, it is impossible to avoid the issue of motivation for a person’s political activity. The most significant motives include ideological, normative, and role-based.
An ideological motive means that a person participates in political life, sharing and supporting the principles of the official ideology of the state. This motivation for participation ensures the identification of the individual’s political values with the political values of the state and the majority of society. Time, differences in personal and political attitudes can cause a sharply negative, even hostile reaction against the state and the political system. So, this becomes the basis for the formation of opposition views, ideas and political structures.
Normative motivation is manifested in the fact that political behavior is built according to the rules dictated by the political system and assigned by the normative-legal subsystem. This motive for political participation is not necessarily combined with personal values and attitudes. Subordination political system is considered by a person as an exclusively correct and valuable orientation, and political behavior (participation) in nature is always legitimate and law-abiding.
The role motive is associated with the social role that a person performs in a given political system, that is, with her social state and her own self-esteem: the lower the social position, the more likely the individual’s radical attitude against the existing government becomes. The desire of a certain part of people in society to improve their social status naturally pushes them to master new noticeable political roles, and, consequently, to raise their socio-political status.
Motivational theories of political participation in Western political science are presented by supporters of the so-called “humanistic” psychology. According to its founder A. Maslow, there are five main motives-needs of the individual: physiological; security needs; in love; in self-affirmation; in self-actualization. They form a stable hierarchy, where the last two are high and entail needs for promotion social status and prestige, the need to express and realize their beliefs and goals in the political sphere. But even under certain conditions, physiological needs, love, and the search for security can be transformed according to the trends and requirements of political life (the desire for peace, prosperity, law and order, and the preservation of national and cultural identity).
See also:
The concept of the political process, the dynamics of its development