So I have been running a social experiment lately on facebook. Mostly for my entertainment.
Step one: Seed the news feed with an inaccurate post about a particular parties candidate. Check.
Step two: Wait for someone to engage in a conversation about said post then remove said post. Check.
Step three: Now that subject has identified their self. Present accurate posts about their chosen candidate and engage in a simulated debate. Check.
Step four: Collect data. Check.
At first I had concluded that it was conformity that the subject was reacting the way they did. With the subject even going so far as repeating propaganda they had heard about the other parties candidate. Yes it was birther propaganda. Conformity itself is something of a mixed blessing. In many situations we need conformity. In fact, many aspects of our social lives would be much harder if we didn't conform to a certain extent - whether it's to legal rules or just to queuing in the post office. Many people conform to avoid disapproval from the group even though they know the group is wrong.
But as the experiment carried on it became clear that the subject was going beyond the rules of conformity.
This led me to believe it was social identity. Social identity theory states that our identities are formed through the groups to which we belong. As a result we are motivated to improve the image and status of our own group in comparison with others. Normally it is a good idea to favor your own group, it is also advantageous to yourself. You protect yourself by protecting others like you. Was it "the us against them" mentality I was witnessing?
I think not.
Final conclusions. Every four years people with the subjects mentality become infatuated (Be inspired with an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for.) with a certain candidate. They place a lot of interest in this person. They develop in their minds a personal relationship with this candidate. They fall in love with them. They become protective of them and when attacked they rush to their aid defending them when the candidate can't defend their selves. They over look their candidate's flaws, lies, and even make excuses for them. When presented with factual claims not in their favor they tend to be in denial and won't even confirm out loud the candidate has lied to them. If the candidate fails to become elected then their choices are clear, they judge the winning candidate as evil and stupid. This is because the winning candidate robbed them of having their chosen candidate in a position of power just like a spouse who was passed up for promotion. Then the passion for their candidate begins to wane. There is no more fanfare, but their dislike and distrust for the winner remains (Yes sore loser syndrome).
However if the candidate win then the relationship with them grows. The subject had after all invested time, love, and sometimes money and they want to see that love grow.
It is however the early stages of this relationship that people have to be aware of. When people like the subject become so engrossed and obsessed with a candidate early on, then they are setting their selves up for failure in their make believe relationship. The candidate will take advantage of them, use them, abuse them, and leave them wanting more.
Notes: This experiment did not take into account why people initially fall in love with a candidate. Whether or not they transpose on their new candidate the hopes of uprooting his and now their rival. Whether or not they rebound on this new candidate after their old one had lost.
Nor did this experiment take into account the critical thinking aspect that many people use when selecting their candidate.
