Factionalism and Foreign Policy: A Model of Minority Influence

  • Patrick HomanEmail author
  • Jeffrey S. Lantis


This chapter reviews theories of political party influence in the U.S. foreign policy process, with particular attention to studies of polarization and partisanship in the contemporary scene. The chapter details our new factional model of minority influence in U.S. foreign policy decision-making by drawing from social psychology. It argues that factions can have outsized influence through persuasion, deviance, and nonconformity, and that their views often address the solvency debate in U.S. foreign policy. The chapter also outlines the research design and methodology for the larger project and previews the plausibility probe using case studies.


  1. Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational Factors in Conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, V. L., & Wilder, D. A. (1975). Categorization, Belief Similarity, and Intergroup Discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 971–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 5, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azari, J. (2016, May 19). A for Effort? Republican Elites Tried to Coordinate but Never Quite Got There. Vox. Retrieved from
  6. Beasley, R. (1998). Collective Interpretations: How Problem Representations Aggregate in Foreign Policy Groups. In D. Sylvan & J. Voss (Eds.), Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beinart, P. (2018, September 16). America Needs an Entirely New Foreign Policy for the Trump Age. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
  8. Bernheim, B. D. (1994). A Theory of Conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 5, 841–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bordens, K., & Horowitz, I. A. (2002). Social Psychology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-Group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, R. G., & Scott, J. M. (2009). Choosing to Lead: Understanding Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 591–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, A. J. (2017). The House Freedom Caucus: Extreme Faction Influence in the U.S. Congress (PDF file). Retrieved from
  14. Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2002). Agenda Power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877 to 1986. In D. Brady & M. D. McCubbins (Eds.), Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crabb, C., & Holt, P. M. (1980). Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President, and Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  16. Curry, J. M. (2015). Legislating in the Dark: Information and Power in the House of Representatives. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delahunty, R. J. (2001). Federalism Beyond the Water’s Edge: State Procurement Sanctions and Foreign Affairs. Stanford Journal of International Law, 37(1), 1–73.Google Scholar
  18. De Vries, N. K., & De Dreu, C. K. (2001). Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. DiSalvo, D. (2009). Party Factions in Congress. Congress & the Presidency: A Journal of Capital Studies, 36(1), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dueck, C. (2010). Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy Since World War II. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Studies and Theory in Political Science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Vol. 7, pp. 79–139). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Enten, H., & Azari, J. (2017, March 26). The Two Cracks in the Republican Party. FiveThirtyEight.
  23. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 4, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. George, A., & Bennett, S. (2004). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. George, A., & McKeown, T. J. (1985). Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decisionmaking. Advances in Information Processing in Organization, 2(1), 21–58.Google Scholar
  26. Gerring, J., & Cojocaru, L. (2016). Selecting Cases for Intensive Analysis: A Diversity of Goals and Methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 45, 392–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Godbout, J.-F., & Hoyland, B. (2011). Legislative Voting in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, M. N. (2019). Legislative Hardball: The House Freedom Caucus and the Power of Threat-Making in Congress (Elements in American Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green, M., & Bee, B. (2017). Keeping the Team Together: Explaining Party Discipline and Dissent in the U.S. Congress. In J. R. Straus & M. E. Glassman (Eds.), Party and Procedure in the United States Congress (2nd ed., pp. 41–62). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  30. Haas, P. M. (2001). Policy Knowledge: Epistemic Communities. In N. J. Smelser & B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 11578–11586). Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hagan, J. D., Everts, P. P., Fukui, H., & Stempel, J. D. (2001). Foreign Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy. International Studies Review, 3, 169–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hager, G. L., & Talbert, J. C. (2000). Look at the Party Label: Party Influences on Voting in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hare, C., & Poole, K. T. (2014). The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics. Polity, 46(3), 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hare, C., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2014). Polarization in Congress Has Risen Sharply: Where Is It Going Next? Washington Post, 13.Google Scholar
  35. Heaney, M. T., & Rojas, F. (2015). Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herndon, A. W. (2019, May 31). Biden’s Appeal to Political Center Tests Power of Democrats’ Left Wing. The New York Times. A11.Google Scholar
  37. Hix, S., & Noury, A. (2016). Government-Opposition or Left-Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hymans, J. E. C. (2006). The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Issacharoff, S. (2016). Outsourcing Politics: The Hostile Takeovers of Our Hollowed Out Political Parties. Houston Law Review, 54:4, NYU School of Law Public Law Research Paper, 16–52. Available as SSRN:
  40. Johnson, L. R., McCray, D., & Ragusa, J. M. (2018). #NeverTrump: Why Republican Members of Congress Refused to Support Their Party’s Nominee in the 2016 Presidential Election. Research and Politics, 5(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnston, A. I. (2001). Treating International Institutions as Social Environments. International Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones, C. O. (1982). The United States Congress: People, Place, and Policy. Homewood: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  43. Jones, E. E. (1984). Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  44. Jost, J., Banaji, M., & Nosek, B. (2004). A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kaarbo, J. (1996). Power and Influence in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Role of Junior Coalition Partners in German and Israeli Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly, 40(1), 501–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaarbo, J. (2006, April 12). Coalition Politics and Foreign Policy: Project Overview. Invited research presentation, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  47. Kaarbo, J. (2008). Coalition Cabinet Decision Making: Institutional and Psychological Factors. International Studies Review, 10(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaarbo, J., & Beasley, R. K. (1999). A Practical Guide to the Comparative Case Study Method in Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 20, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Key, V. O., Jr. (1949). Southern Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  50. Kriner, D. L. (2010). After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lantis, J. S. (2009). The Life and Death of International Treaties: Double-Edged Diplomacy and the Politics of Ratification in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lapham, L. H. (2005). On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, F. E. (2016). Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Levy, J. S. (2003). Political Psychology and Foreign Policy. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 253–284). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Levy, J. (2008). Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Libby, R. T. (2014). Purging the Republican Party: Tea Party Campaigns and Elections. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  57. Lindsay, J. M. (1994). Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lucas, D. L., & Deutchman, I. E. (2009). Five Factions, Two Parties: Caucus Membership in the House of Representatives, 1994–2002. Congress & The Presidency, 36(1), 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden Impact of Minorities: Fifteen Years of Minority Influence Research. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 428–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maass, A., Clark, R. D., & Haberkorn, G. (1982). The Effects of Differential Ascribed Category Membership and Norms on Minority Influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maoz, Z. (1990). Framing the National Interest. World Politics, 43, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Marsh, K., & Lantis, J. S. (2016). Are All Foreign Policy Innovators Created Equal? The New Generation of Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurship. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(2), 116–141.Google Scholar
  63. McCarty, N. (2016). In Defense of DW-NOMINATE. Studies in American Political Development, 30, 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mead, W. R. (2011). The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism. Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 28–44.Google Scholar
  65. Mead, W. R. (2017, January 20). The Jacksonian Revolt: American Populism and the Liberal Order.
  66. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Milgram, S. (1965). Liberating Effects of Group Pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(2), 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2015). Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  70. Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a Theory of Conversion Behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  71. Moscovici, S. (1985). The Age of the Crowd: A Historical Treatise on Mass Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, A. B. (1980). Studies in Social Influence V: Minority Influence and Conversion Behavior in a Perceptual Task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(3), 270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Response of a Majority in a Color-Perception Task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mugny, G. (1975). Negotiations, Image of the Other and the Process of Minority Influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1991). The Social Psychology of Minority Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Nemeth, C. J. (1986). The Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nemeth, C., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The Trade Offs of Social Control and Innovation Within Groups and Organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 175–210). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  78. Noel, H. (2016, September). Ideological Factions in the Republican and Democratic Parties. Annals, AAPSS 667.Google Scholar
  79. Papastamou, S., & Mugny, G. (1985). Rigidity and Minority Influence of the Social in Social Influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on Minority Influence (pp. 113–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Patterson, S. C., & Caldeira, G. A. (1988). Contours of Friendship and Respect in the Legislature. American Politics Research, 16(4), 466–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Peake, J. S., Krutz, G. S., & Hughes, T. (2012). President Obama, the Senate, and the Polarized Politics of Treaty Making. Social Science Quarterly, 93(5), 1295–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2015). The Polarization of the Congressional Parties. Updated March 21, 2015.Google Scholar
  83. Ragin, C. C. (2014). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  84. Rathbun, B. (2013). Steeped in International Affairs? The Foreign Policy Views of the Tea Party. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Reiter, H. L. (1980). Party Factionalism National Conventions in the New Era. American Politics Quarterly, 8(3), 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Reiter, H. L. (1998). The Bases of Progressivism Within the Major Parties. Social Science History, 22(1), 83–116.Google Scholar
  87. Rohde, D. W. (1991). Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rubin, R. B. (2017). Building the Bloc: Intraparty Organization in the U.S. Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rublee, M. R. (2008). Taking Stock of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime: Using Social Psychology to Understand Regime Effectiveness. International Studies Review, 10(3), 420–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sanders, B. (2018, October 9). Sanders Speech at SAIS: Building A Global Democratic Movement to Counter Authoritarianism. School for Advanced International Studies. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University.
  91. Schwartz, M. A. (2010). Interactions Between Social Movements and US Political Parties. Party Politics, 16(5), 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case-Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sindler, A. P. (1955). Bifactional Rivalry as an Alternative to Two-Party Competition in Louisiana. American Political Science Review, 49(3), 641–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2011). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Spirling, A., & McLean, I. (2007). UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis, 15(1), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Straus, J. R., & Glassman, M. E. (Eds.). (2017). Party and Procedure in the United States Congress (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  98. Sylvan, D. A., & Thorson, S. J. (1992). Ontologies, Problem Representation, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(4), 709–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sylvan, D. A., & Voss, J. F. (1998). Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social Influence Model: A Formal Integration of Research on Majority and Minority Influence Processes. Psychology Bulletin, 95(2), 189–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Theriault, S. M. (2013). The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thomsen, D. M. (2017). Joining Patterns Across Party Factions in the US Congress. The Forum, 15(4), 741–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Van Dyke, N., & Meyer, D. S. (2014). Understanding the Tea Party Movement. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  104. Wachtler, J. B. (1977). The Effect of Conformity Versus Minority Influence Settings on the Individual’s Ability to Locate Non-obvious Solutions in a Hidden Figures Test. Doctoral Dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning.Google Scholar
  105. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., et al. (1994). Minority Influence: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Influence Processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zucco, C., Jr. (2009). Ideology or What? Legislative Behavior in Multiparty Presidential Settings. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1076–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zucco, C., Jr., & Lauderdale, B. E. (2011). Distinguishing Between Influences on Brazilian Legislative Behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 363–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceDominican UniversityRiver ForestUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceThe College of WoosterWoosterUSA

Personalised recommendations