When Partisanship is Too Risky: Understanding the Expression of Political Identity Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jaqualynn M. Anderson Graduate Program in Communication The Ohio State University Committee: Robert Bond, Advisor William “Chip” Eveland, Committee Member Copyrighted by Jaqualynn M Anderson Abstract In the media, partisans are often portrayed in constant conflict and detrimental to the democratic process in the United States. If this is the case, partisans may engage in techniques to disguise their partisan affiliation, especially online. This study examines partisan identity expression through social identity theory, impression management, and willingness to self- censor. Utilizing two different samples, participants answer survey questions, read an article, then create an online profile for an imaginary discussion site. Results demonstrate that even if partisans are portrayed negatively, they will continue to identify with their party on their discussion site profile, counter to the hypotheses presented. i Acknowledgements I want to thank the professors who have encouraged me to further my education and offer vital support along the way, both at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Specifically, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Zheya Gai and Dr. Melissa Cook from Washington & Jefferson College for noticing my potential to participate in conferences and further my education outside of the classroom. Another thanks to my cohort at Ohio State. Thank you for providing a space where we all could come together and discuss our accomplishments and failures. I also want to thank my family and friends for all their love and support during my academic journey. Specifically, I thank Brandon Durbin for reading over my drafts and allowing me to bounce ideas off of you. I know this thesis was very far outside of your field, but I deeply appreciate your interest and concern for my project. ii Vita Education B.A. in Communication Arts Washington & Jefferson College 2014 – 2018 Capstone Project: “Polarization and News Biases” B.A. in Political Science Washington & Jefferson College 2014 – 2018 Capstone Project/Independent Study: “A Comparative Analysis of Campaign Finance Systems in the United States. United Kingdom, and Germany” Relevant Work Experience Graduate Teaching Assistant Ohio State University Aug. 2019 – May 2020 Assoc. Marketing Director Office of International Programs (W&J) Dec. 2016 – May 2018 Marketing Intern Stage Right! – Greensburg, PA May 2017 – Aug 2017 Student Faculty Secretary Academic Affairs (W&J) Sep. 2014 – May 2017 Fields of Study Major Field: Communication iii Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... ii Vita ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. v Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Political Identification ............................................................................................................... 4 Social Identity Theory .................................................................................................... 4 Partisan Social Identity ................................................................................................... 8 Managing a Partisan Identity ........................................................................................ 12 Self-Monitoring Identity ............................................................................................... 16 Avoiding Identity ..................................................................................................................... 18 Spiral of Silence ........................................................................................................... 18 Criticisms of the Spiral of Silence ................................................................................. 22 Willingness to Self-Censor (WTSC) ............................................................................. 26 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 29 Results .................................................................................................................................... 46 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 54 General Discussion .................................................................................................................. 62 References ............................................................................................................................... 68 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 75 Appendix A: Pre-Treatment Survey ............................................................................. 75 Appendix B: Treatment Articles ................................................................................... 78 Appendix C: Profile Creation........................................................................................ 79 Appendix D: Selecting Discussion Partners .................................................................. 82 iv List of Tables Table 1: Demographics of Each Sample ................................................................................... 43 Table 2: Hypotheses 1 & 2 – Welch’s T-Test ............................................................................ 47 Table 3: Hypothesis 3 – Correlations between Self-Monitoring and Independent Options ......... 48 Table 4: Regression Model – Icon Change (DV), Article Condition & Self-Monitoring (H3a) . 50 Table 5: Regression Model – Label Change (DV), Article Condition & Self-Monitoring (H3b) 50 Table 6: Hypothesis 4 – Correlations between WTSC and Independent Options ........................ 52 Table 7: Regression Model – Icon Change (DV), Article Condition & WTSC (H4a) ................. 53 Table 8: Regression Model – Label Change (DV), Article Condition & WTSC (H4b) ............... 53 Table 9: Demographics of Each Sample, Examining Race ......................................................... 58 Table 10: Hypotheses by Sample ............................................................................................... 63 v Introduction In 2019, 85% of U.S. adults told Pew Research that they believed that political debate has grown more negative and less respectful than in the past, and 78% believe this rhetoric can lead to violence (Drake & Kiley, 2019). With the rise of perceived negativity surrounding political debate, many individuals around the globe are refraining from discussing politics with one another. Parties globally are often portrayed in constant conflict (Geiβ & Schäfer, 2017), leading to possible negative perceptions of their members. Young adults refrain from posting their political opinions online due to a perceived risk of the wrong person seeing it or people perceiving them negatively (Storsul, 2014). Some scholars believe individuals seek to avoid these kinds of social risks associated with their political group membership (Zaller & Feldman, 1992). By identifying with the partisan group or expressing a political opinion, an individual may fear being attributed negative characteristics or possible exclusion from others. Should individuals fail to express their partisanship to others, others might misjudge the opinion climate or refrain from participating in politics generally (Kwon, Moon, & Stefanone, 2015; Storsul, 2014). Due to the increased perception of social risk and expressing a political opinion, will partisans alter their political identity? This study attempts to understand whether partisans may hide behind non-partisan or Independent options when partisanship is evaluated as negative by others. Membership within a group can lead to the perceptions of the group being attached to the individuals within group. According to social identity theory (SIT), individuals desire to maintain or enhance their perceptions of self (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Self-perceptions rely on comparisons between one’s group and an out-group which the individual does not belong. If the group is seen as negatively valenced, individuals may attempt to change to a positively valenced 1 group, compete with positively valenced groups, or redefine their existing group. Identification with a group may vary from private to public as individuals engage in impression management techniques aimed at concealing an inappropriate or negative aspect of oneself (Snyder, 1974). In the age of public social media profiles, individuals may opt to vary their identification with various groups on their profiles, especially a group which carries negative perceptions when expressed publicly. If partisanship is conveyed as a negative social characteristic, they may attempt