Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Political motivation

Political motivation:
What motivates engagement in politics?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Case study Figure 1. Teacher teaching young children. Alex grew up in a politically disengaged household, who rarely spoke of politics. Whilst in university, Alex studied a Bachelor of Education, becoming interested in issues pertaining to inequality in education. Then Alex became a teacher (see Figure 1) at a school with minimal resources, furthering his interest in the issue. As his career continued, education budget cuts continued to impact his school, prompting Alex to begin attending social justice workshops. Which influenced him to advocate for equitable access to education and healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alex’s increased involvement in political activities over time indicates political motivation. Through a combination of personal experience, social identity, moral and ethical beliefs and a desire for change, Alex was able to become involved in politics with a motivation to change things.

Politics is a set of activities related to decisions-making within groups or managing power dynamics among individuals, including how resources or status is distributed.

Motivation is a cognitive representation of a desired endpoint that impacts evaluations, emotions and behaviours (Fishbach et al., 2007).

Together, these two concepts create the idea of political motivation, which is a persons desire to undertake certain actions in the context of their political views and goals.

Focus questions What psychological theories and research can help understand and explain this topic? How can we see psychological theory in current political scenarios? What is the current and emerging research in this area?

Research and theory

Influential researchers

Milton Lodge and Charles Taber

Milton Lodge and Charles Taber are New York based political psychologists, who have spent much of their careers collaborating on their bodies of work. In 2013, they co-wrote the book The Rationalizing Voter in which it was argued that all people are largely unaware of the various influences that play into each individual’s decision making. This work has been described as “the most important study of motivated reasoning about politics that has been published to date” (Nyhan, 2013).The book takes a close focus at the unique aspects of politics and how people respond to political figures and issues.

James Druckman

James Druckman is a political scientist, and a professor based in New York. Much of his political research is entrenched in motivation, as his research has found strong evidence for the effectiveness of political messaging to be dependent on people’s motivation (Druckman, 2012).

Druckman had a slightly different perspective to Lodge and Taber, arguing that motivated reasoning or scepticism does not always occur (Druckman, 2012). Druckman posed that Lodge and Taber had significantly understated the possibility that individuals may choose to focus on pursuing accuracy goals rather than engaging in the process of motivated reasoning (Druckman, 2012).

What psychological theories explain political motivation?

The main psychological theories that assist in understanding the intersection between politics and motivation are:

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

Figure 2. Self-determination theory and the three needs

Self-determination theory is a holistic theory of human motivation that addresses behaviours driven by internal factors and inherent psychological needs (Book Chapter, 2019) .

Self-determination theory links together the energisation of behaviour with our basic psychological needs which as the need for relatedness, autonomy and competence (see Figure 2) (Taylor, 2015). When these three needs are supported, people feel intrinsically motivated to undertake tasks whether educational, enjoyable or just outwardly rewarding (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This then indicates that if these three needs are unsupported or prevented, an individual’s growth will be thwarted, leading to wellness being negatively affected (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

The hierarchical model of motivation (Vallerand, 2000)

The hierarchical model of motivation is a model of both intrinsic (something that is ‘inherently interesting or enjoyable’) and extrinsic (‘doing something because it leads to a separable outcome’) motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This model studies the motivational processes in any area of performance such as work, sports, relationships and other interests (Vallerand, 2000). According to this model, individuals all have varying models of curiosity depending on the specific area (Wuttke, 2020). This model has three ‘levels’ known as situational, contextual and global (Taylor 2015) (See Table 1).

Table 1.

The Hierarchical Model of Motivation

Level	Explanation
1. Global	An individual's general motivation towards life, their wishes, desires and choices they make. A combination of personality factors, sociological, biological and environmental factors, individual perceptions and feelings of autonomy, competence, relatedness and power.
2. Contextual	The general areas of an individual's life, which can include work, schooling, interpersonal relationships and extracurricular activities. This also includes the level of self-regulation and general skills an individual has when approaching problems.
3. Situational	Involves real-time, real-world actions, feedback and the consequences of those actions. This type of motivation induces situational consequences such as procrastinating on a task and then subsequently not doing the task properly.

Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985)

Figure 3. Theory of planned behaviour

The theory coined by social psychologist Icek Ajzen was created following the creation of the theory of reasoned action. The theory of planned behaviour is that what determines human behaviour is the intention behind the behaviour (Ajzen, 1985).This theory intended to explain the behaviours over which people are able to exert self-control over (LaMorte, 2022). The idea behind this concept is that behavioural intentions are influenced by the proposed to likelihood that the behaviour will produce an expected outcome, along with the perceived benefits and risks of that behaviour (see Figure 3) (LaMorte, 2022). This theory contains three components (see Table 2):

Table 2.

The Components of Theory of Planned Behaviour and their Definitions.

Component	Definition
Attitude	Evaluations towards a behaviour (eg. is this harmful or beneficial?)
Subjective Norm	Assessment of the social presssures on the individual to perform or not to perform a particular behaviour
Perceived Behavioural Control	The level of self-efficacy and controllability that the individual believes they have over the event or behaviour.

Test yourself! In the Hierarchical Model of Motivation, which level focuses on the individual's general desires and values that influence their political identity? Situational Level Global Level Contextual Level

Applying psychological theory to political movements

So what do those three theories look like when they are applied to real-life political events and situations?

Self-determination theory

Figure 4. Greta Thunberg with poster translating to 'school strike for climate'.

Climate strikes and youth climate movements

Applying self-determination theory (SDT) to political motivation shows that people feel freedom to express their political views (autonomy), when they are connected to a group of people (relatedness) and believe they can create change (competence) (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This can be seen in the rise of climate change related protests over the last decade. In August of 2018, a 15-year-old Greta Thunberg held her first protest (see Figure 4), demanding the government to take action towards reducing their carbon emissions in line with the Paris agreement (Budziszewska & Glod, 2021). This behaviour can be explained by Thunberg’s self-determination, as she inspired and connected with other young people passionate about climate justice, empowered them to voice these passions and continues to do so with the belief that she can hold the government accountable.

Theory of planned behaviour

Donald Trump and the January 6 riot

Figure 5. Former President of the USA, Donald Trump.

Theory of planned behaviour (TPB), suggests that individuals act based on the behaviours they perceive to be morally correct (Sabucedo et al., 2018). In TPB, moral ideas are seen to be operationalized as moral obligations, pushing one to act (Ajzen, 1991), this can be seen in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. On that day in 2021, US President Donald Trump (see Figure 5) encouraged his supporters to invade the Capitol building, in an attempt to disrupt Congress, where they were intending to formalize the victory of President Joe Biden after the 2020 election (Donovan et al., 2022). The actions of the rioters indicated that they had very strong beliefs about the results, motivating them to act, preventing the Congress meeting (attitude). Participants belonged to a very specific group of people, research indicated that one’s self-identity is crucial to TPB (Fielding et al., 2008) and with Donald Trump’s endorsement, combined with promotion from fellow supporters, subjective norms were perpetuated, causing the riot (subjective norm). When rioting, the rioters truly believed they could prevent President Bidens election victory from being finalised, indicating a high level of perceived behavioural control.

The hierarchical model of motivation

Racial justice protests and collective action

Figure 6. Australians engage in a racial justice protest

The hierarchical model of motivation (HMM) can be seen in the recent protests for racial justice, such as the Black Lives Matter movement or Closing the Gap protests in regards to the disparities Indigenous Australians face (see Figure 6). The HMM can be reflected in ones willingness to engage with racial justice protests as such:

1. Global level: Individuals that are driven by a strong belief in equality and racial justice will want to engage in racial justice protests as they feel strongly about advocating for reform.
2. Contextual level: An individual who is engaged with protest activity tends to be a part of a larger network of people, building community solidarity. When local communities organize events or provide educational resources about the causes, an individual is encouraged to participate as they are a part of a larger movement with shared values and goals (Jost et al., 2017).
3. Situational level: Specific events such as the death of George Floyd in May 2020 or the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody serve as immediate triggers pushing people to protest. Use of hashtags, promotions of viral videos and various other social media campaigns also rally people to take immediate action.

Quiz Which of the following statements best highlights a key difference between the three theories discussed in relation to political activism? SDT emphasizes the role of autonomy, while the TPB focuses on moral convictions. The HMM is solely concerned with economic factors influencing protest participation. SDT and the HMM prioritize contextual factors, while the TPB focuses on individual moral beliefs.

Current and future research

Youth political engagement

Figure 7. Young people engaging in protest

Youth political engagement (YPE) has risen substantially over the last decade (Weber, 2017), YPE is defined as “a multifaceted concept consisting of cognitive, affective, motivational, behavioural and skill indicators of a young individual’s involvement in politics and decision-making” (Osman et al., 2020). Due to the rise in YPE, a large amount of the recent political motivation research looks very closely at young people and why they choose to engage with politics.

Resources and incentives (Weber, 2018)

Young people may have some different motivations behind their levels of political engagement, as identified by Regina Weber in her 2017 and 2018 research papers (Weber, 2018). She proposed that young people joining political parties could be explained through either an incentive or resource based background, where incentives refer to the benefits one expects to gain and resources refers to the time, money or skill the individual possesses (Weber, 2018). She also identified three distinct motivation groups of young political party members (see Table 3).

Table 3.

The Three Types of Motivation When Joining a Political Party

Group	Type
1	This group has a comprehensive set of motivations which cover social, moral and professional incentives.
2	This group disregards professional motivations but considers social and moral incentives as important.
3	This group is not motivated by any of the listed incentives, their motivation remains undefined.

The three dimensions of YPE (Osman et al., 2020)

Researcher Muna Osman and colleagues proposed that YPE can be organised into three specific dimensions known as the internal, external and social dimensions (see Table 4) (Osman et al., 2020). The internal dimension captures the ‘psychological underpinnings of behaviour’ which contains the manifestations of an individual’s subjective thoughts, motives and feelings towards politics and political issues (Osman et al., 2020). The external dimension represents the outward and overt political behaviours the person engages in, often referred to as ‘political participation’ (Osman et al., 2020). The social dimension refers to the social skills one needs to facilitate communication and interaction with others when it related to political activities (Osman et al., 2020).

Table 4.

The Three Dimensions of YPE

Dimension	Example
Internal	Awareness about political concepts and current events, knowledge on how to participate in political events, knowing the importance of helping others and having a sense of solidarity.
External	Voting, engaging in political debates, signing petitions that will enact change and making financial contributions to political groups or causes.
Social	Negotiating competing interests with people you politically disagree with, reflecting on your own beliefs and speaking publicly at political protests.

Reflection! Reflecting on the three dimensions as proposed by Osman and colleagues: Which dimension of political engagement do you find yourself currently engaging in? Which dimension would you like to engage in more?

Other factors that impact YPE

Socioeconomic standard model

Placing a strong emphasis on the socioeconomic standard model is important when researching this area, being politically engaged is a privilege as it directly related to one’s socioeconomic status (Weber, 2017). All resources are interrelated meaning that if someone has an education, it is implied that they have knowledge and skills, resulting in an advanced job with a higher income and more flexible working hours, allowing them to politically engage (Weber, 2017).

Educator support

A study conducted in the Midwest United States on a sample of 422 adolescents, explored the key attitudes and influences to YPE (Levy & Akiva, 2019). The study’s findings suggested that educator’s supporting students in their development of political interest would assist in students becoming engaged with politics (Levy & Akiva, 2019). Highlighting that educator support would be extremely beneficial in maintaining young people’s political interest and then their subsequent participation and engagement in politics (Levy & Akiva, 2019).

Non-institutional politics

A study conducted by Binder and colleagues looked at a small sample of adolescents in Austria and concluded that the young people were ‘dealigned but mobilized’ (Binder et al., 2021). Results indicated that young people had found new avenues for political engagement, as they slowly become politically detached from traditional political institutions (Binder et al., 2021). Binder and colleagues established that young people are redefining what being political is, by finding alternative sources and spaces to be politically engaged in (Binder et al., 2021).

Current Theory

Extended social identity model of collective action (Van Zomeren et al., 2017)

One of the latest theories developed to explain the motivation to politically engage is the extended social identity model of collective action (SIMCA) (Van Zomeren et al., 2018). Collective action refers to “joint conduct of group members who aimed to improve the position of their own group or to reach a common group goal” (Akfirat et al., 2021). The SIMCA proposes that group identification, group efficacy beliefs and group-based injustice are positive predictors of an individual’s willingness to engage in collective action (Van Zomeren et al., 2018).The 2018 extension includes a moral belief component to action, with Van Zomeren arguing that those who moralise an issue are more likely to be motivated to protect and defend these moral beliefs (Van Zomeren et al., 2018).

The SIMCA model underlines three reasons are to why people will engage in collective action (Van Zomeren et al., 2018):

1. Social identification: Advancing the interests of their group.
2. Injustice: Believing their group is being treated unjustly.
3. Group efficacy: By acting, they can change things.

Digital communication and the transformation of collective goals

Figure 8. Examples of methods of digital communication

As digital technology has become a new tool of mobilization, collective action has been transformed (Akfirat et al., 2021). This new form of connective action allows for mass communication and for user-generated content to be shared, with researchers stating that this connective action is far more personalised, meaning that a common ideological framework is no longer required (Akfirat et al., 2021). Social media has been thought to be a ‘stitching mechanism’ as various networks of people can be brought together even if they do not share common goals or a conventional group structure (Akfirat et al., 2021). A study by Nekmat and colleagues showed that receiving messages from friends push people to participate in collective activities, then receiving an online call-out or an impersonal message from an organization (Nekmat et al., 2019).

Limitations of future research There is a debate on whether online political movements 'count' as political participation (Weiss, 2020). Many people, especially adults tend to politically align with more conservative parties that benefit them, meaning there is not much room for them to change through motivation theory (Weiss, 2020). Social media can be very controlling, creating an echo-chamber of ones political beliefs (Keating, 2017). If someone is not politically motivated due to losing interest in politics, social media is not beneficial in re-engaging them (Keating, 2017).

Conclusion

Political engagement is motivated by a variety of diverse psychological, social and contextual factors. Researchers have not reached a clear consensus; with some arguing that political decision-making is largely influenced by unconscious factors, while others view it as a conscious effort. Key psychological theories explaining political motivation include Self-Determination Theory, Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Hierarchical Model of Motivation. Each theory consists of components that underly why individuals are motivated to adopt certain behaviours and thought patterns. These theories can be applied to several significant early 21st century political events, such as the January 6 Capitol riot, where subjective norms were endorsed, the youth climate movement, which empowered young people to effect change through autonomy and competence, and racial justice protests driven by global, contextual, and situational factors. Current research focuses on the rise of youth political engagement, noting that individuals with a higher socio-economic status are more likely to politically engage due to their greater access to resources. Support within educational institutions and the promotion of non-institutional forms of politics have been found to be beneficial for sustaining political motivation in youths. Furthermore, recent research is exploring collective models of political motivation and looking into the benefits and limitations of digital communication and social media in enhancing engagement with politics.

Key takeways Political motivation is influenced by all facets of an individuals life. Political engagement is based within the psychological science of motivation. Motivation can come from basic psychological needs, interpersonal relationships, hobbies, the level of control we believe we have over a situation and more. Social media and digital communication can enhance political motivation as it connects various groups of people.

See also

• Political Orientation and Motivation (Book chapter, 2016).
• Political psychology and emotion (Book chapter, 2018).
• Political Psychology (Wikipedia)

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

Akfırat, S., Uysal, M. S., Bayrak, F., Ergiyen, T., Üzümçeker, E., Yurtbakan, T., & Özkan, Ö. S. (2021). Social identification and collective action participation in the internet age: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2021-4-10

Bayes, R., Druckman, N, J., Goods, A., & Molden, C, D. (2020). When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning. Political Psychology, 41(5), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/pops.12663

Binder, A., Heiss, R., Matthes, J., Sander, D. (2021) Dealigned but mobilized? Insights from a citizen science study on youth political engagement. Journal of Youth Studies 24 (2), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2020.1714567

Buziszewska.M., Glod.Z. (2021) “These are the Very Small Things that Lead Us to That Goal”: Youth Climate Strike Organizers Talk about Activism Empowering and Taxing Experiences. Youth Climate Activism and Sustainable Civic and Political Engagement 13(1) 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911119

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Donovan, J., Fagan, K., Lee, F. (2022) President Trump is Calling us to Fight: What the Court Documents Reveal about the Motivations Behind January 6 and Networked Incitement. Working Paper. https://mediamanipulation.org/sites/default/files/202207/j6_motivations_working_paper.pdf

Druckman, J. N. (2012). The Politics of Motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2012.711022

Fielding.S.K., McDonald, R., Louis.R.W. (2008) Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (4) 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003

Fishbach, A. & Ferguson, J.M. (2007). The goal construct in social psychology. Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2, 490–515. The Guilford Press.

Jones, J. (2013) The Rationalizing Voter by Milton Lodge and Charles S. Taber. Political Psychology, 36 (1). 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12245

Jost.T.J., Becker.J., Osborne, D., Badaan, V. (2017) Missing in (Collective) Action: Ideology, System Justification, and the Motivational Antecedents of Two Types of Protest Behaviour. Current Directions in Psychological Science 26 (2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417690633

Keating, A & Melis, G. (2017) Social media and youth political engagement: Preaching to the converted or providing a new voice for youth? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117718461

LaMorte.W.W. (November 3, 2022) The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Boston University of Public Health. https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph modules/sb/behavioralchangetheories/BehavioralChangeTheories3.html

Levy. M. L. B., Akiva. T. (2019) Motivating Political Participation Among Youth: An Analysis of Factors Related to Adolescents’ Political Engagement. Political Psychology 40 (5), 1039–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12578

Osman, M., Miranda, D., & Jourde, C. (2020). Youth political engagement in adolescence. Canadian Psychology 61(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000176

Riaz, S. (2021) How Social Media is Shaping Conflicts: Evidences from Contemporary Research. Journal of Peace, Development and Communication, 5(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.36968/JPDC-V05-I04-06

Ryan,M.R., Deci.L.E. (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1). 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Taber,C. & Lodge,M. (2006). Motivation Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15405907.2006.00214.x

Taylor, M. (2015). The Hierarchical Model of Motivation: A Lens for Viewing the Complexities of Motivation. Performance Improvement 54 (4), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21475

Vallerand.J.R. (2000). Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory: A View from the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Psychological Inquiry (11) 4. 312–318. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449629

Van Zomeren, M. (2016). Building a tower of Babel? Integrating core motivations and features of the social structure in the political psychology of political action. Advances in Political Psychology, 37 (1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12322

Weiss, J. (2020) What is youth political participation? Literature review on youth political participation and political attitudes. Frontiers in Political Science 21(1). doi: 10.3389/fpos.2020.00001

Wuttke, A. (2020). Political Motivation: Why some citizens engage with politics and others do not [Doctoral dissertation, University of Mannheim] https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/57824/1/Dissertation%20Wuttke%20Political%20Motivation.pdf

External links

• Rage, waste and corruption: how Covid changed politics (The Guardian)
• Social media seen as mostly good for democracy across many nations, but U.S is a Major Outlier (Pew Research Centre)
• Why it's important for youth to engage in politics (TEDxTalks)