To meme or not to meme? Political social media posts and ideologically motivated aggression in job recommendations.

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Robert D Ridge, Christopher E Hawk, Luke D Hartvigsen, Logan D McCombs
{"title":"To meme or not to meme? Political social media posts and ideologically motivated aggression in job recommendations.","authors":"Robert D Ridge, Christopher E Hawk, Luke D Hartvigsen, Logan D McCombs","doi":"10.1080/00224545.2024.2316619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study tested the notion of ideological asymmetry, which proposes that conservatives are more prejudiced than liberals. It involved 682 self-identified conservative (<i>n</i> = 383) and liberal (<i>n</i> = 299) perceivers (MTurk workers; 54% female) who evaluated a target person's professional attributes, personal character, and job suitability based on the target's social media posts. The results did not support ideological asymmetry as both conservative and liberal participants negatively evaluated an ideologically opposite target. Interestingly, liberals showed three times more bias than conservatives. This study better supports a worldview conflict hypothesis, an alternative to ideological asymmetry, with both sides showing indirect aggression in an apolitical setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":48205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2024.2316619","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study tested the notion of ideological asymmetry, which proposes that conservatives are more prejudiced than liberals. It involved 682 self-identified conservative (n = 383) and liberal (n = 299) perceivers (MTurk workers; 54% female) who evaluated a target person's professional attributes, personal character, and job suitability based on the target's social media posts. The results did not support ideological asymmetry as both conservative and liberal participants negatively evaluated an ideologically opposite target. Interestingly, liberals showed three times more bias than conservatives. This study better supports a worldview conflict hypothesis, an alternative to ideological asymmetry, with both sides showing indirect aggression in an apolitical setting.

meme还是不meme?政治社交媒体帖子与求职推荐中的意识形态攻击。
本研究测试了意识形态不对称的概念,即保守派比自由派更具偏见。682 名自我认同的保守派(n = 383)和自由派(n = 299)感知者(MTurk 工作者;54% 为女性)根据目标人物在社交媒体上发布的帖子对其职业属性、个人性格和工作适宜性进行了评价。结果不支持意识形态不对称,因为保守派和自由派参与者都对意识形态相反的目标人物做出了负面评价。有趣的是,自由主义者表现出的偏见是保守主义者的三倍。这项研究更好地支持了世界观冲突假说,这是意识形态不对称的另一种说法,双方在非政治环境中都表现出了间接的攻击性。
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
Journal of Social Psychology
Journal of Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Since John Dewey and Carl Murchison founded it in 1929, The Journal of Social Psychology has published original empirical research in all areas of basic and applied social psychology. Most articles report laboratory or field research in core areas of social and organizational psychology including the self, attribution theory, attitudes, social influence, consumer behavior, decision making, groups and teams, sterotypes and discrimination, interpersonal attraction, prosocial behavior, aggression, organizational behavior, leadership, and cross-cultural studies. Academic experts review all articles to ensure that they meet high standards.
×
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