In their capacity to define groups and confer status, governments inevitably affect citizens’ self-esteem (Lane Reference Lane1982). Yet, as research on self-esteem has grown and evolved over the last several decades, the ways that government and politics facilitate, stifle, and otherwise affect how individuals regard themselves and the groups to which they belong received little empirical examination. This study examines how political rhetoric that devalues one racial group affects self- and group-regard among the group's members and non-members. In particular, this study examines the effect of anti-Black political rhetoric on two components of self-esteem—race-specific collective self-esteem (R-CSE) and internal political efficacy—among African–Americans and Whites.
SELF-ESTEEM AND POLITICS
Self-esteem is constructed situationally and, thus, can fluctuate in response to different events (Crocker and Quinn Reference Crocker, Quinn, Heatherton, Kleck, Hebl and Hull2003; Leary Reference Leary, Van Lange, Kruglanski and Higgins2012). In addition to the idiosyncratic factors that endow particular situations with particular meanings for an individual's sense of self, self-esteem is also a function of the collective representations that are brought to situations. The range of collective representations that may be important to self-esteem includes ideologies, stereotypes, and beliefs about prejudice and discrimination (Crocker and Quinn Reference Crocker, Quinn, Heatherton, Kleck, Hebl and Hull2003)—phenomena that are well-established as political. However, whether people use particular collective representations to evaluate themselves or their groups depends on features of the situation that make those collective representations salient.
The ability to make particular considerations more or less salient is among political leaders’ most politically expedient skills (Iyengar and Kinder Reference Iyengar and Kinder2010; Kuklinski and Hurley Reference Kuklinski and Hurley1994; Nelson et al. Reference Nelson, Oxley and Clawson1997); and political leaders’ use of this skill to invoke anti-Black affect is well-documented (Hutchings and Jardina Reference Hutchings and Jardina2009; Mendelberg Reference Mendelberg2001; Valentino et al. Reference Valentino, Hutchings and White2002). Because the effect of political communication on self-esteem is most pronounced among members of low-status groups, particularly in situations in which their group memberships are salient (e.g., see Quinn and Crocker Reference Quinn and Crocker1999), I predicted that political rhetoric accentuating anti-Black sentiments would undermine self-esteem among African–Americans, yet have no effect on self-esteem among Whites, given that Whites occupy a higher position in the racial hierarchy and are not the object of this rhetoric. The specific components of self-esteem that I expected to be affected by such rhetoric are collective self-esteem and internal political efficacy, as these elements of self-esteem are especially relevant to anti-Black political rhetoric.
Collective self-esteem is conceptually rooted in social identity theory, which posits that essential components of the self-concept derive from the social groups to which individuals belong; and, because individuals strive to have a positive self-concept, they also strive for a positive collective identity (Crocker et al. Reference Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine and Broadnax1994; Luhtanen and Crocker Reference Luhtanen and Crocker1992; Tajfel and Turner Reference Tajfel, Turner, Austin and Worchel1986). Collective identity and, hence, collective self-esteem, is positive to the extent that one's social groups are valued and regarded favorably in comparison with other relevant groups. Political information that derogates African–Americans suggests that Africans–Americans are not valued or favorably regarded relative to other racial groups and, thus, may be injurious to African–Americans’ collective self-esteem. Further, sociometer theory suggests that cues from the social environment are critical to self-esteem, and cues that signal social disapproval or rejection are known to undermine self-esteem (Leary Reference Leary, Van Lange, Kruglanski and Higgins2012). Though African–Americans are adept at separating how they regard their own racial group from their beliefs about how others regard African–Americans (Crocker et al. Reference Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine and Broadnax1994), social identity theory and sociometer theory suggest that the effectiveness of this self-protection is weakened when directly confronted with information that marginalizes African–Americans, especially when that information proceeds from a socially influential and authoritative source. Accordingly, I predicted that exposure to anti-Black political rhetoric would undermine how African–Americans privately regarded their racial group and activate beliefs about public regard for their racial group (i.e., beliefs about others’ evaluations of African–Americans) as a predictor of private regard. Because such rhetoric does not directly speak to the value of Whites’ collective identity relative to other groups, I predicted that anti-Black political rhetoric would be of little consequence to collective self-esteem among Whites.
Internal political efficacy is the self-assessment of one's personal capacity for politics and, as such, reflects an explicitly political component of self-esteem (Finkel Reference Finkel1987; Harris Reference Harris1994; Shingles Reference Shingles1981). Consistent with the aforementioned social psychological research on self-esteem (e.g., Crocker and Quinn Reference Crocker, Quinn, Heatherton, Kleck, Hebl and Hull2003; Leary Reference Leary, Van Lange, Kruglanski and Higgins2012; Quinn and Crocker Reference Quinn and Crocker1999), internal political efficacy is also responsive to salient situational factors, particularly among members of low-status groups (e.g., see Stout and Tate Reference Stout and Tate2013). Hence, I predicted that exposure to political information that derogates African–Americans would be particularly consequential for this political component of self-esteem among African–Americans, but exert a negligible effect on Whites.
METHODS
To test my theoretical expectations, 50 African–American and 46 White participants from three southern universities were recruited for this study. They were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions and told that either “a prominent political figure” or “an ordinary American” was recently quoted as saying that “African Americans should stop making excuses and rely much more on themselves to get ahead in society,”Footnote 1 or they were assigned to a control condition and not told of any statement. The “ordinary American” condition was included to distinguish the effect of political rhetoric on self-esteem from the effect of mere exposure to an anti-Black message.
To measure racial group-regard, participants completed the R-CSE scale (Crocker et al. Reference Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine and Broadnax1994). The private R-CSE subscale (α = 0.7035) was used to measure participants’ private regard for their racial group, or participants’ esteem for their own racial group; and the public R-CSE subscale (α = 0.8063) was used to measure participants’ beliefs about public regard for their racial group, or participants’ assessments of the esteem that others hold for their racial group. (See the Appendix online for the questions that compose the private and public R-CSE subscales.) To measure internal political efficacy, participants were asked to indicate on a four-point Likert-type scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements “I consider myself well-qualified to participate in politics” and “I think that I am as well-informed about politics and government as most people”; and responses to these two questions were added together to form a unified measure of internal political efficacy.Footnote 2
RESULTS
Private R-CSE and internal political efficacy were each regressed onto the treatment conditions separately for African–Americans and Whites. In addition, private R-CSE was regressed onto public R-CSE,Footnote 3 the treatment conditions, and interactions between public R-CSE and the treatments for African–Americans and Whites. The results appear in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 OLS Regression Results Predicting Private Race-Specific Collective Self-Esteem
***p < 0.01 (one-tailed test) **p < 0.05 (one-tailed test) *p < 0.10 (one-tailed test).
Note: The dependent variable, private race-specific collective self-esteem, ranges in value from 0 (the lowest private race-specific collective self-esteem) to 1 (the highest private race-specific collective self-esteem). Standard error estimates are in parentheses.
Table 2 OLS Regression Results Predicting Internal Political Efficacy
***p < 0.01 (one-tailed test) **p < 0.05 (one-tailed test) *p < 0.10 (one-tailed test).
Note: The dependent variable, internal political efficacy, ranges in value from 0 (the lowest internal political efficacy) to 1 (the highest internal political efficacy). Standard error estimates are in parentheses.
As expected, when the anti-Black message was attributed to an ordinary American, it did not have statistically significant main or interaction effects on either self-esteem measure for African–Americans or Whites. Consistent with my expectations, however, when the anti-Black message was attributed to a political figure, it was significantly associated with lower private R-CSE among African–Americans, but did not significantly affect private R-CSE among Whites.
Also as predicted, the anti-Black political message activated a positive relationship between public R-CSE and private R-CSE among African–Americans, as indicated by the significant two-way interaction. As illustrated in the right panel of Figure 1a, this finding suggests that only African–Americans who believed others have high regard for their racial group had some immunity to the undermining effect of the political message on their private racial self-esteem. Among Whites, however, exposure to the anti-Black political message weakened and reversed the relationship between public R-CSE and private R-CSE. This unexpected finding, illustrated in the left panel Figure 1a, suggests that anti-Black political messages may boost private racial self-esteem among Whites who believe that others have low regard for their group, but undermine it among those who think others regard their group highly.
Figure 1 (a) Private R-CSE as a Function of Public R-CSE and (b) Internal Political Efficacy by Experimental Condition for African–Americans and Whites. (Color online)
As predicted, the anti-Black political message also had a significant effect on internal political efficacy among African–Americans. As illustrated in the right panel of Figure 1b, African–Americans exposed to the anti-Black political message reported feeling significantly less competent to participate in politics than those in the control group. Among Whites, as expected, the political message had no significant effect on internal political efficacy.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This research provides empirical confirmation of the role that politics can play in determining how individuals feel about themselves and the groups to which they belong. It demonstrates that invoking anti-Black stereotypes in politics can undermine how African–Americans feel about their racial group and even their personal capacity for politics; and it demonstrates that, for both African–Americans and Whites, political rhetoric can alter the relationship between beliefs about public regard for one's racial group and how individuals privately regard their group.
This study, however, is not without its limitations. Chief among these limitations is the fact that the duration of the effects of anti-Black political rhetoric on self-esteem is not clear. As with many experimental studies in political science (Gaines et al. Reference Gaines, Kuklinski and Quirk2007), going forward it will be useful to clarify the extent to which the effects of anti-Black political rhetoric on self-esteem endure. Whether these effects last for only a fleeting moment or persist over a lifetime, however, understanding the extent to which government and politics are potentially injurious to citizens’ self-concept and psychological well-being is nonetheless critically important.
A second limitation is the fact that no contextual information was provided about the source of the anti-Black message other than that it was from a “prominent political figure.” In future studies examining how political discourse affects self-esteem, it will be useful to also examine the role of various attributes of the source of the political messages—e.g., race, gender, and party identification—as well as other features of the political environment. In the present study, however, the fact that participants were so responsive to a non-descript “prominent political figure,” with no other attributions, speaks volumes about individuals’ potential vulnerability to political influence.
A final limitation worth noting is the fact that this study was conducted in the American south, which is known to have a particularly contentious racial history (and present). It is possible that this particular racial context colored the results of this study and further limited their generalizability. As with most non-population-based social scientific experiments, however, my expectation was not that this study would be high in external validity. The fact that political discourse stands to undermine self-esteem among any segment of the population is meaningful and suggests that the extent of political influence over the lives of citizens is broader than most scholars previously considered and worthy of further examination. Nevertheless, given the limitations associated with the context in which this study was conducted, in future research it will be critically important to examine the effects of political rhetoric on self-esteem in a variety of contexts and, ideally, on nationally representative samples.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2014.27.
