Political rule (vs. opposition) predicts whether ideological prejudice is stronger in U.S. conservatives or progressives.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Johanna Woitzel, Alex Koch
{"title":"Political rule (vs. opposition) predicts whether ideological prejudice is stronger in U.S. conservatives or progressives.","authors":"Johanna Woitzel, Alex Koch","doi":"10.1037/xge0001643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People see societal groups as less moral, warm, and likable if their ideology is more dissimilar to the ideology of the self (i.e., ideological prejudice). We contribute to the debate on whether ideological prejudice in the United States is stronger in conservatives, progressives, or neither. Investigating the American National Election Studies, we found that between 1972 and 2021, ideological prejudice was stronger in conservatives. However, investigating studies conducted to develop the agency-beliefs-communion model, we found that between 2016 and 2021, ideological prejudice was stronger in progressives. We report various analyses of both research programs and two new studies that rule out several explanations for this contradiction. Additional analytic and experimental evidence suggests that political rule (vs. opposition) may explain the robust heterogeneity in asymmetric ideological prejudice. Ideological prejudice shifted toward being stronger in conservatives when the United States was governed by Democrats and toward being stronger in progressives when the United States was governed by Republicans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001643","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People see societal groups as less moral, warm, and likable if their ideology is more dissimilar to the ideology of the self (i.e., ideological prejudice). We contribute to the debate on whether ideological prejudice in the United States is stronger in conservatives, progressives, or neither. Investigating the American National Election Studies, we found that between 1972 and 2021, ideological prejudice was stronger in conservatives. However, investigating studies conducted to develop the agency-beliefs-communion model, we found that between 2016 and 2021, ideological prejudice was stronger in progressives. We report various analyses of both research programs and two new studies that rule out several explanations for this contradiction. Additional analytic and experimental evidence suggests that political rule (vs. opposition) may explain the robust heterogeneity in asymmetric ideological prejudice. Ideological prejudice shifted toward being stronger in conservatives when the United States was governed by Democrats and toward being stronger in progressives when the United States was governed by Republicans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

政治统治(与反对派)可预测美国保守派或进步派的意识形态偏见是否更强烈。
如果社会群体的意识形态与自我的意识形态更为相似,那么人们就会认为这些社会群体更缺乏道德感、温暖感和亲和力(即意识形态偏见)。关于美国的意识形态偏见在保守派、进步派还是两者都不强的争论,我们对此有所贡献。通过对美国全国选举研究的调查,我们发现在 1972 年至 2021 年期间,保守派的意识形态偏见更强。然而,通过调查为建立 "代理-信仰-共融 "模型而进行的研究,我们发现在2016年至2021年期间,进步人士的意识形态偏见更强。我们报告了对这两个研究项目和两项新研究的各种分析,排除了对这一矛盾的几种解释。更多的分析和实验证据表明,政治统治(与反对派)可以解释非对称意识形态偏见的强大异质性。当美国由民主党执政时,保守派的意识形态偏见会更强,而当美国由共和党执政时,进步派的意识形态偏见会更强。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
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
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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