Motivated inquiry: ideology shapes responses to the Christian Porter rape allegation

IF 3.6 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Morgan Weaving, C. Fine, N. Haslam
{"title":"Motivated inquiry: ideology shapes responses to the Christian Porter rape allegation","authors":"Morgan Weaving, C. Fine, N. Haslam","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2022.2061373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective After learning of the rape allegation against the Attorney-General, Australians were divided in their support for an inquiry. We hypothesised that motivated reasoning on this issue would be associated with ideological preferences. We therefore examined whether perceptions of arguments about the inquiry could be explained by participants’ political orientation, preference for hierarchy (SDO), and motivation to justify the gender status quo (GSJ). Method Three months after the allegation was made public, we recruited a gender-balanced sample of 554 Australians to complete an online survey. Results Participants believed that an article arguing for an inquiry was stronger than an article arguing against an inquiry. However, this effect was weaker among those on the right of the political spectrum and those high on SDO. Political orientation was also associated with differing evaluations of the article’s authors: left-leaning participants found the pro-inquiry author more credible, but right-leaning participants did not. GSJ was not associated with differing evaluations of the articles or their authors. Conclusions These findings suggest that ideological preferences are associated with motivated reasoning when evaluating partisan allegations of sexual misconduct. Evaluations of such allegations appear to vary according to people’s political attitudes and preferences for social equality or hierarchy. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: (1) In early 2021, Australians were deeply divided in their support for an inquiry into the rape allegation against Christian Porter. (2) Individuals tend to respond to political sexual misconduct allegations with a partisan bias. (3) Gender system justification (GSJ) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are associated with the denial of injustice towards women, and the maintenance of social hierarchies, respectively. What this topic adds: (1) Ideological preferences can help to explain how people evaluate arguments about the inquiry. (2) Participants on the political left and those low on SDO evaluated a pro-inquiry article as significantly stronger than the anti-inquiry article, but this effect was reduced amongst those on the right and those high on SDO. (3) These findings provide evidence that political orientation and SDO are associated with motivated reasoning when evaluating partisan allegations of sexual misconduct.","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2022.2061373","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective After learning of the rape allegation against the Attorney-General, Australians were divided in their support for an inquiry. We hypothesised that motivated reasoning on this issue would be associated with ideological preferences. We therefore examined whether perceptions of arguments about the inquiry could be explained by participants’ political orientation, preference for hierarchy (SDO), and motivation to justify the gender status quo (GSJ). Method Three months after the allegation was made public, we recruited a gender-balanced sample of 554 Australians to complete an online survey. Results Participants believed that an article arguing for an inquiry was stronger than an article arguing against an inquiry. However, this effect was weaker among those on the right of the political spectrum and those high on SDO. Political orientation was also associated with differing evaluations of the article’s authors: left-leaning participants found the pro-inquiry author more credible, but right-leaning participants did not. GSJ was not associated with differing evaluations of the articles or their authors. Conclusions These findings suggest that ideological preferences are associated with motivated reasoning when evaluating partisan allegations of sexual misconduct. Evaluations of such allegations appear to vary according to people’s political attitudes and preferences for social equality or hierarchy. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: (1) In early 2021, Australians were deeply divided in their support for an inquiry into the rape allegation against Christian Porter. (2) Individuals tend to respond to political sexual misconduct allegations with a partisan bias. (3) Gender system justification (GSJ) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are associated with the denial of injustice towards women, and the maintenance of social hierarchies, respectively. What this topic adds: (1) Ideological preferences can help to explain how people evaluate arguments about the inquiry. (2) Participants on the political left and those low on SDO evaluated a pro-inquiry article as significantly stronger than the anti-inquiry article, but this effect was reduced amongst those on the right and those high on SDO. (3) These findings provide evidence that political orientation and SDO are associated with motivated reasoning when evaluating partisan allegations of sexual misconduct.
动机调查:意识形态塑造了对克里斯蒂安·波特强奸指控的回应
摘要目的在得知针对司法部长的强奸指控后,澳大利亚人对调查的支持出现了分歧。我们假设,在这个问题上有动机的推理会与意识形态偏好有关。因此,我们研究了参与者的政治取向、等级偏好(SDO)和证明性别现状的动机(GSJ)是否可以解释对调查争论的看法。方法在指控公开三个月后,我们招募了554名澳大利亚人进行性别平衡的在线调查。结果参与者认为,支持调查的文章比反对调查的文章更有力。然而,这种影响在政治光谱右翼和SDO高层中较弱。政治取向也与对文章作者的不同评价有关:左倾参与者认为支持调查的作者更可信,但右倾参与者则不然。GSJ与对文章或其作者的不同评价无关。结论这些发现表明,在评估性行为不端的党派指控时,意识形态偏好与动机推理有关。对此类指控的评价似乎因人们的政治态度和对社会平等或等级制度的偏好而异。关键点关于这个话题的已知情况:(1)2021年初,澳大利亚人在支持对克里斯蒂安·波特强奸指控进行调查方面存在严重分歧。(2) 个人对政治性行为不端的指控往往带有党派偏见。(3) 性别制度正当性(GSJ)和社会支配取向(SDO)分别与否认对妇女的不公正和维持社会等级制度有关。本主题补充道:(1)意识形态偏好有助于解释人们如何评估有关调查的论点。(2) 政治左派和性别歧视程度较低的参与者认为支持调查的文章明显强于反对调查的文章,但这种影响在右派和性别歧视水平较高的参与者中有所减少。(3) 这些发现提供了证据,证明在评估性行为不端的党派指控时,政治取向和性别歧视与动机推理有关。
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
Australian Journal of Psychology
Australian Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientific journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication. The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the field of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister journals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specific topics, theoretical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.
×
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