| Article |
|---|
| Article name |
Contemporary Representations of Ideology in the Case of the Company “Cambridge Analytics” |
| Authors |
Gasparian S.A. lecturer, English department No. 6, S.gasparian@my.mgimo.ru |
| Bibliographic description |
Gasparian S. A. Contemporary Representations of Ideology in the Case of the Company “Cambridge Analytics” // Transbaikal State University Journal. 2024. Vol. 31, no. 1. P. 116–126. DOI: 10.21209/2227-9245-2025-31-1-116-126 |
| Category |
Politology |
| DOI |
329.1 |
| DOI |
10.21209/2227-9245-2025-31-1-116-126 |
| Article type |
Original article |
| Annotation |
The relevance of the study manifests itself in the scientific problem – the activities of Cambridge Analytics in the context of allegations of personal data misuse belonging to voters obtained by the company from various electronic sources. The focus is the problem of using personal data from social media. The subject of the research is the response and actions of Cambridge Analytics in the context of accusations of illegal manipulation of users’ electronic data. The aim is to identify the connection between the system of theoretical ideas of the Cambridge Analytics managers and election campaign strategies. Specific aspects of the research are as follows: to identify the Cambridge Analytics management’s approach to using Facebook users` information; to examine the company’s behavior; to analyze the consequences of the Cambridge Analytics incident for the evolution of political technologies. The research methodology is based on approaches specific to intellectual history, focusing, among other things, on identifying the consequences of introducing new “political technologies”. The media attention is focused on the ways of obtaining data and sources of corporations` funding associated with Cambridge Analytics. At the same time, one of the themes has become the inferences on which strategies used by the company to influence voters are founded. These strategies are based on a five-factor psychometric model, which contained the features missed by the media. In this model, special political significance is attributed to such characteristics as “consciousness”, which correlated with conservative political views, and “openness to experience” which corresponded to the liberal ones. The conclusion is the following: publications about the company have demonstrated the real functioning of the “polarization” mechanism, which presents the main threat to the democratic process. The strong belief of professionals in the endurance of political views leads to the choice of strategies aimed at mobilizing their supporters and ignoring the opposite side, thus creating a situation in which the opponents in the electoral process cease to communicate with each other; as a result, prejudices about the fundamental intolerance of different political views are clearly confirmed
|
| Key words |
Cambridge Analytics, five factor model of personality, political polarization, political consulting, political psychology, ideology, corporation, electoral democracy, genetic factor, voters, election campaigning |
| Article information |
|
| References |
Atnashev T, Velizhev M (eds). The Cambridge School: Theory and Practice of Intellectual History. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 2018. 632 p. (In Russian).
Konfisakhor AG.Psychology of Political Power. Saint Petersburg: SPBGU. 2019; 564 p. (In Russian).
Ostin Dzh. Selected works. Moscow: Idea-Press; 1999. 332 p. (In Russian).
Shestopal EB. Request for Change: An Attempt at a Political-Psychological Interpretation. Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology. 2022;13(2S):103–114. (In Russian).
Shmitt K. The spiritual and historical condition of the modern parliamentarism. In: The concept of the political. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka; 2016. Pp. 93–170. (In Russian).
Shmitt K. The concept of the political. In: The concept of the political. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka; 2016. Рp. 280–408 (In Russian).
Yurevich A. Psychological versatility of patriotism. Psychological Journal. 2018;39(6):86–94. (In Russian).
Allen T., DeYoung C. Personality Neuroscience and the Five Factor Model. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Five Factor Model. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. Pp. 319–352.
Brown-Dean K. Identity Politics in the United States. Cambridge: Polity, 2019. 288 p.
Codevilla A. The Cold Civil War. Claremont Review of Books. 2017. No. 2. Pp. 24–27.
Costa P, McCrae R. The NEO Inventories as Instruments of Psychological Theory. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Five Factor Model. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. Pp. 32–80.¶
Dumont F. A History of Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. 574 p.
Fest D. Divided Politics, Divided Nation: Hyperconflict in the Trump Era. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2019. 234 p.
Hetherington M, Weiler J. Prius or Pickup? Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2018; 288 p.
Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Vemon PA. Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Their Facets: A Twin Study. Journal of Personality. 1996;64(3):577–592.
Johnston C., Lavine H., Federico C. Open versus Closed. Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. 298 p.
Jost J. Left and Right. The Psychological Significance of a Political Distinction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2021. 416 p.
Kaiser B. Targeted. New York: Harper; 2019. 400 p.
Klein E. Why We’re Polarized. New York: Avid Reader Press; 2020. 352 p.
Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Graepel T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(15):5802–5805.
Loehlin JC, McCrae RR, Costa PT, John OP. Heritabilities of Common and Measure-Specific Components of the Big Five Personality Factors. Journal of Research in Personality. 1998;32(4):431–453.
Luttig M. The Closed Partisan Mind. New York: Cornell University Press; 2023. 156 p.
Mason L. Uncivil Agreement. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. 192 p.
Moscovici S. Social Representations. New York: New York University Press; 2001. 240 p.
The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt / ed. J Meierhenrich, O Simons. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016. 874 p.
Riemann R, Angleitner A, Strelau J. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Personality: A Study of Twins Reared Together Using the Self- and Peer Report NEO-FFI Scales. Journal of Personality. 1997;65(3):449–475.
Waller N. Evaluating the Structure of Personality. In: Cloninger C. (ed). Personality and Psychopathology. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1999. Pp. 155–200.
Wylie CM. Cambridge Analytica and the Plot to Break America. New York: Random House; 2019. 288 p.
|
| Full article | Contemporary Representations of Ideology in the Case of the Company “Cambridge Analytics” |
