Empathic Conservatives and Moralizing Liberals: Political Intergroup Empathy Varies by Political Ideology and Is Explained by Moral Judgment.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
James P Casey, Eric J Vanman, Fiona Kate Barlow
{"title":"Empathic Conservatives and Moralizing Liberals: Political Intergroup Empathy Varies by Political Ideology and Is Explained by Moral Judgment.","authors":"James P Casey, Eric J Vanman, Fiona Kate Barlow","doi":"10.1177/01461672231198001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Empathy has the potential to bridge political divides. Here, we examine barriers to cross-party empathy and explore when and why these differ for liberals and conservatives. In four studies, U.S. and U.K. participants (total <i>N</i> = 4,737) read hypothetical scenarios and extended less empathy to suffering political opponents than allies or neutral targets. These effects were strongly shown by liberals but were weaker among conservatives, such that conservatives consistently showed more empathy to liberals than liberals showed to conservatives. This asymmetry was partly explained by liberals' harsher moral judgments of outgroup members (Studies 1-4) and the fact that liberals saw conservatives as more harmful than conservatives saw liberals (Studies 3 and 4). The asymmetry persisted across changes in the U.S. government and was not explained by perceptions of political power (Studies 3 and 4). Implications and future directions are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"1461672231198001"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231198001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Empathy has the potential to bridge political divides. Here, we examine barriers to cross-party empathy and explore when and why these differ for liberals and conservatives. In four studies, U.S. and U.K. participants (total N = 4,737) read hypothetical scenarios and extended less empathy to suffering political opponents than allies or neutral targets. These effects were strongly shown by liberals but were weaker among conservatives, such that conservatives consistently showed more empathy to liberals than liberals showed to conservatives. This asymmetry was partly explained by liberals' harsher moral judgments of outgroup members (Studies 1-4) and the fact that liberals saw conservatives as more harmful than conservatives saw liberals (Studies 3 and 4). The asymmetry persisted across changes in the U.S. government and was not explained by perceptions of political power (Studies 3 and 4). Implications and future directions are discussed.

移情的保守派和道德化的自由派:政治群体间的移情因政治意识形态而异,并可通过道德判断加以解释》(Political Intergroup Empathy Varies by Political Ideology and Is Explained by Moral Judgment.
移情具有弥合政治分歧的潜力。在此,我们研究了跨党派共情的障碍,并探讨了自由派和保守派在何时以及为何存在这些障碍。在四项研究中,美国和英国的参与者(总人数 = 4737 人)在阅读假设情景时,对遭受苦难的政治对手的移情程度低于对盟友或中立目标的移情程度。这些效应在自由主义者中表现得很明显,但在保守主义者中则较弱,因此保守主义者对自由主义者表现出的移情一直多于自由主义者对保守主义者表现出的移情。造成这种不对称现象的部分原因是,自由主义者对外群体成员的道德判断更为苛刻(研究 1-4),以及自由主义者眼中的保守主义者比保守主义者眼中的自由主义者更有害(研究 3 和 4)。这种不对称性在美国政府发生变化时依然存在,政治权力观念无法解释这种不对称性(研究 3 和 4)。本文讨论了研究的意义和未来发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信