The changing association between political ideology and closed-mindedness: Left and right have become more alike

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Social and Political Psychology Pub Date : 2022-10-28 DOI:10.5964/jspp.6751

Jesse Acosta, Markus Kemmelmeier

{"title":"The changing association between political ideology and closed-mindedness: Left and right have become more alike","authors":"Jesse Acosta, Markus Kemmelmeier","doi":"10.5964/jspp.6751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evidence suggests that politically right-leaning individuals are more likely to be closed-minded. Whether this association is inherent or subject to change has been the subject of debate, yet has not been formally tested. Through a meta-analysis, we find evidence of a changing association between conservatism and facets of closed-mindedness in the U.S. and international context using 341 unique samples, over 200,000 participants, and 920 estimates over 71 years. In the U.S., data ranging from 1948 to 2019 revealed a linear decline in the association between social conservatism (SC) and closed-mindedness, though economic conservatism (EC) did not vary in its association with closed-mindedness over time. Internationally across 18 countries, excluding the U.S., we observed a curvilinear decline in the association between SC and closed-mindedness over that same time, but no change in ECs association. We also tested variation over time for attitudinal measures of conservatism ranging between 1987 to 2018. In the U.S., we observed a linear increase in the association between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and closed-mindedness, with a similar linear increase in the association between social dominance orientation (SDO) and closed-mindedness. Internationally, there was a curvilinear increase in the association between RWA and closed-mindedness, but no change in the association with SDO. We discuss the changes to the political landscape that might explain our findings.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidence suggests that politically right-leaning individuals are more likely to be closed-minded. Whether this association is inherent or subject to change has been the subject of debate, yet has not been formally tested. Through a meta-analysis, we find evidence of a changing association between conservatism and facets of closed-mindedness in the U.S. and international context using 341 unique samples, over 200,000 participants, and 920 estimates over 71 years. In the U.S., data ranging from 1948 to 2019 revealed a linear decline in the association between social conservatism (SC) and closed-mindedness, though economic conservatism (EC) did not vary in its association with closed-mindedness over time. Internationally across 18 countries, excluding the U.S., we observed a curvilinear decline in the association between SC and closed-mindedness over that same time, but no change in ECs association. We also tested variation over time for attitudinal measures of conservatism ranging between 1987 to 2018. In the U.S., we observed a linear increase in the association between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and closed-mindedness, with a similar linear increase in the association between social dominance orientation (SDO) and closed-mindedness. Internationally, there was a curvilinear increase in the association between RWA and closed-mindedness, but no change in the association with SDO. We discuss the changes to the political landscape that might explain our findings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

政治意识形态与思想封闭之间不断变化的联系:左派和右派变得越来越相似

有证据表明，政治上右倾的人更有可能思想封闭。这种联系是固有的还是可能发生变化一直是争论的主题，但尚未经过正式测试。通过一项荟萃分析，我们使用341个独特的样本，超过20万名参与者，以及71年来的920项估计，发现了保守主义与美国和国际背景下的封闭心态之间关系不断变化的证据。在美国，1948年至2019年的数据显示，社会保守主义（SC）与思想封闭之间的关联呈线性下降，尽管经济保守主义（EC）与思想闭塞的关联并没有随着时间的推移而变化。在除美国以外的18个国家的国际范围内，我们观察到在同一时间内，SC和封闭心态之间的联系呈曲线下降，但EC的联系没有变化。我们还测试了1987年至2018年间保守主义态度测量随时间的变化。在美国，我们观察到右翼威权主义（RWA）与思想封闭之间的关联呈线性增加，社会支配取向（SDO）与思想闭塞之间的关联也呈类似的线性增加。在国际上，RWA与思想封闭之间的关联呈曲线增加，但与SDO的关联没有变化。我们讨论了可能解释我们发现的政治格局的变化。

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 and Political Psychology Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

4.80%

发文量

审稿时长

40 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.