Linguistic differences in the political communication of winning mayors in Colombia’s local elections between 2019 and 2023

  1. David Aguilar-Pardo
  2. Diana-Camila Garzón-Velandia
  3. Juan-Camilo Carvajal-Builes
  4. María-Idaly Barreto-Galeano
  5. Henry Zárate-Ceballos
  6. José-Manuel Sabucedo-Cameselle
Revista:
International Journal of Social Psychology, Revista de Psicología Social

ISSN: 0213-4748,  1579-3680

Ano de publicación: 2024

Volume: 39

Número: 3

Páxinas: 451-472

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1177/02134748241281586 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Outras publicacións en: International Journal of Social Psychology, Revista de Psicología Social

Resumo

The use of language reflects different sociocognitive processes which are crucial in political psychology. In political communication in elections and governance, the manipulation of language to mobilize actions may be imperceptible by citizens, especially in the vast volumes of news posted on digital platforms like Twitter (now X). For this reason, we set out to analyse the differences in the linguistic style and content of the messages of 18 mayors of large cities in Colombia during the electoral campaign and the start of the period of governance through a two-stage design. We found that the politicians’ language during the electoral campaign had a persuasive function focused on promoting inclusive identities and generating empathy using prosocial topics. In contrast, the linguistic style during the term of office was more formal and complex, highlighting the legitimacy of the acts of governance. Differences were also found in the candidates on the left and right related to how they discuss economic issues during the electoral campaign. These findings show the need to take a multidisciplinary approach to address the effects of language and technology on the understanding and explanation of the psycho-political processes involved in elections and governance.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abdel-Raheem A. (2020). Mental model theory as a model for analysing visual and multimodal discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 303–320. Crossref
  • Altamirano-Benítez V., Ruíz-Aguirre P., Baquerizo-Neira G. (2022). Política 2.0 en Ecuador. Análisis del discurso y la comunicación política en Facebook. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 80, 201–223. https://www.doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2022-1539
  • Auwalu I. (2021). Strategic communication in politics and governance [Working paper]. Crossref
  • Barreto I., Medina-Arboleda I. F. (2021). Political communication and ideology. In Zúñiga C., López-López W. (Eds.), Political psychology in Latin America (pp. 175–195). American Psychological Association. Crossref
  • Barreto M. I., Medina-Arboleda I. F., Zambrano-Hernández S., Sabucedo-Cameselle J. M., Blanco-Abarca A., Lair E. M. (2021). Rhetoric, political ideology and the peace process in Colombia: A Twitter analysis. Journal Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 44(11), 920–937. Crossref
  • Beltramin J. (2009). La teoría del contexto de T. Van Dijk como proyecto analítico derivado del pragmatismo peirciano: un aporte a la comprensión semiótica del discurso. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 25(2), 427–463. Crossref
  • Borja-Orozco H. (2022). Consumo político: estrategias de comunicación basadas en el voto ideológico y de rendimiento. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 54, 12–22. Crossref
  • Boyd R. L., Pennebaker J. W. (2016). A way with words: Using language for psychological science in the modern era. In Dimofte C. V., Haugtvedt C. P., Yalch R. F. (Eds.), Consumer psychology in a social media world (pp. 222–236). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-02008-014
  • Cárdenas-Sánchez D., Sampayo A. M., Rodríguez-Prieto M., Feged-Rivadeneira A. (2022). Un marco comparativo para analizar la convergencia en las conversaciones electorales de Twitter. Informe científico, 12, 19062. Crossref
  • Carmona Díaz G. M., Villada J., Piñeres J. D., Jiménez Leal W. (2021). Persuasión moral en el marco del posconflicto en Colombia: un estudio sobre la calidad de los argumentos y la experticia de la fuente. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 24(2), 144–155. Crossref
  • Chilton P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Crossref.
  • Christy K. (2017). I, you, or he: Examining the impact of point of view on narrative persuasion. Media Psychology, 21(4), 700–718. Crossref
  • Fernández I. B., de Barrón Alloza I. O. (2021). Semiótica digital y comunicación política. El despegue y auge de Vox. Doxa Comunicación. Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios de Comunicación y Ciencias Sociales, 33, 53–74. Crossref
  • Garzón-Velandia D. C., Barreto I., Medina-Arboleda I. F. (2020). Validación de un diccionario de LIWC para identificar emociones intergrupales. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 52, 149–159. Crossref
  • Gasper K., Spencer L., Middlewood B. L. (2020). Differentiating hope from optimism by examining self-reported appraisals and linguistic content. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15, 220–237. Crossref
  • Hawkins R. C. II, Boyd R. L. (2017). Such stuff as dreams are made on: Dream language, LIWC norms, and personality correlates. Dreaming, 27(2), 102–121. Crossref
  • Huddy L., Bankert A. (2017). Political partisanship as a social identity. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Crossref
  • Iyengar S., Simon A. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review Psychology, 51, 149–169. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.149 Crossref.
  • Jennings W., Bevan S., John P. (2011). The agenda of British government: The speech from the throne, 1911-2008. Political Studies, 59(1), 74–98. Crossref. Web of Science.
  • Jost J. T., Sterling J. (2020). The language of politics: Ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress. Social Influence, 15(2–4), 80–103. Crossref
  • Laca F., Mejía J., Yáñez C. (2010). Identidad mexicana e interés político: predictores de bienestar social y anomia. Acta Universitaria, 20(2), 40–49. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/416/41613788005.pdf
  • Logan M., Hall M. (2019). Comparing crime types: A linguistic analysis of communiqués associated with the animal and earth liberation movement. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 12(2), 164–181. Crossref
  • Marcus G. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221–250. https://doi.org/1094-2939/00/0623-0221$14.00 Crossref.
  • Markowitz D. M., Hancock J. T. (2017). The 27 Club: Music lyrics reflect psychological distress. Communication Reports, 30(1), 1–13. Crossref
  • McNair B. (2011). An introduction to political communication (5th ed.). Routledge. Crossref.
  • Oatley K., Johnson-Laird P. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 1(1), 29–50. Crossref
  • Paatelainen L., Kannasto E., Isotalus P. (2022). Functions of hybrid media: How parties and their leaders use traditional media in their social media campaign communication. Frontiers in Communication, 6, Article 817285. Crossref
  • Peña D. (2002). Análisis de datos multivariantes. McGraw Hill. https://www.casadellibro.com.co/libro-analisis-de-datos-multivariantes/9788448136109/859844
  • Pennebaker J. W., Booth R. J., Boyd R. L., Francis M. E. (2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2015 operator’s manual. https://liwc.app/static/documents/LIWC2015%20Manual%20-%20Operation.pdf
  • Pennebaker J. W., Chung C. K., Frazee J., Lavergne G. M., Beaver D. I. (2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLOS ONE, 9(12), Article e115844. Crossref
  • Pennebaker J. W., Francis M. E., Booth R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001 (p. 71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Pennebaker J. W., Mehl M., Niederhoffer K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our world, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577. Crossref
  • Porat R., Halperin E., Tamir M. (2016). What we want is what we get: Group-based emotional preferences and conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 167–190. Crossref
  • Ramírez-Esparza N., Pennebaker J. W., García F. A., Suriá R. (2007). La psicología del uso de las palabras: Un programa de computadora que analiza textos en español [The psychology of word use: A computer program that analyzes texts in Spanish]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 24(1), 85–99. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=243020635010
  • Reyes M., O’Quínn J., Morales J., Rodríguez E. (2011). Reflexiones sobre la comunicación política. Espacios Públicos, 14(30), 85–101. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/676/67618934007.pdf
  • Rogers E. (2004). Theoretical diversity in political communication. In Lee L. (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 3–16). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Rojas-Landinez L. J., Medina-Arboleda I. F. (2018). Validación de un diccionario para el programa LIWC sobre comportamiento prosocial [Informe final Beca Jóvenes Investigadores e Innovadores por la Paz, Convocatoria 775 de Minciencias].
  • Sabucedo J. M., Durán M., Alzate M. (2010). Identidad colectiva movilizada. Revista de Psicología Social, 25(2), 189–201. Crossref
  • Salkind N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1-0). Sage. Crossref
  • Sterling J., Jost J. T., Bonneau R. (2020). Political psycholinguistics: A comprehensive analysis of the language habits of liberal and conservative social media users. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 805–834. Crossref
  • Strömbäck J., Kiousis S. (2014). Strategic political communication in election campaigns. In Reinemann C. (Ed.), Political communication (pp. 109–128). De Gruyter Mouton. Crossref
  • Tajfel H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press.
  • Tajfel H., Billig M., Bundy R. P., Flament C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 144–177. Crossref
  • Tajfel H., Forgas J. P. (2000). Social categorization: Cognitions, values and groups. In Stangor C. (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 49–63). Psychology Press.
  • Tausczik Y. R., Pennebaker J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. Crossref
  • Ten Brinke L., Porter S. (2012). Cry me a river: Identifying the behavioral consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 469–477. Crossref
  • Tinashe Nenjerama T., Mpofu S. (2022). Populism from below and social movements: A case of Zimbabwe’s #ThisFlag Movement. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 57(4), 693–711. Crossref
  • Van Dijk T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243–289. Crossref
  • Van Dijk T. A. (2003). Ideología y discurso. Ariel.
  • Van Dijk T. A. (2012). Discurso y contexto. Un enfoque sociocognitivo. Editorial Gedisa.
  • Van Lange P. A. M., Bekkers R., Chirumbolo A., Leone L. (2011). Are conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals? From games to ideology, political preferences and voting. European Journal of Personality, 26(5), 461–473. Crossref
  • Weismueller J., Harrigan P., Coussement K., Tessitore T. (2022). What makes people share political content on social media? The role of emotion, authority and ideology. Computers in Human Behavior, 129, Article 107150
Fonte de datos: Dialnet