美国政治中的部落主义:党派犯了双重标准吗?

Michael Bernstein, Nicholas Zambrotta, Scott Martin, Lauren Micalizzi
{"title":"美国政治中的部落主义:党派犯了双重标准吗?","authors":"Michael Bernstein, Nicholas Zambrotta, Scott Martin, Lauren Micalizzi","doi":"10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political tribalism has increased dramatically in recent years. We explored partisan double-standards of Democratic and Republican voters across both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. In Study 1, participants rated the perceived legitimacy of election outcomes in response to hypothetical and ambiguous results from the 2020 presidential election. In Study 2 Part 1, college students and Amazon Turk volunteers rated their support of real-world presidential policies and actions. All policies/actions were attributed to Trump or Obama though they actually occurred under both presidents. In Study 2 Part 2, participants rated how bigoted various statements were; we manipulated who the utterances were attributed to (Trump v. Bill Clinton or Trump v. Martin Luther King [MLK]). Generally, Republican ratings were more favorable when statements were attributed to Trump vs. Democratic leaders while the opposite is true of Democrats. Crucially, these biases exist when evaluating identical information. Republicans and Democrats had a very small and very large tendency, respectively, to view statements as more bigoted under Trump vs. MLK. To the degree that this study can answer the question about which side is more guilty of double-standards, our results provide tentative evidence that this occurs under Democrats more than Republicans, though this overall difference may obscure important moderators. Our data provide evidence for tribal loyalty which may have significant social and political ramifications.","PeriodicalId":484348,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tribalism in American Politics: Are Partisans Guilty of Double-Standards?\",\"authors\":\"Michael Bernstein, Nicholas Zambrotta, Scott Martin, Lauren Micalizzi\",\"doi\":\"10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Political tribalism has increased dramatically in recent years. We explored partisan double-standards of Democratic and Republican voters across both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. In Study 1, participants rated the perceived legitimacy of election outcomes in response to hypothetical and ambiguous results from the 2020 presidential election. In Study 2 Part 1, college students and Amazon Turk volunteers rated their support of real-world presidential policies and actions. All policies/actions were attributed to Trump or Obama though they actually occurred under both presidents. In Study 2 Part 2, participants rated how bigoted various statements were; we manipulated who the utterances were attributed to (Trump v. Bill Clinton or Trump v. Martin Luther King [MLK]). Generally, Republican ratings were more favorable when statements were attributed to Trump vs. Democratic leaders while the opposite is true of Democrats. Crucially, these biases exist when evaluating identical information. Republicans and Democrats had a very small and very large tendency, respectively, to view statements as more bigoted under Trump vs. MLK. To the degree that this study can answer the question about which side is more guilty of double-standards, our results provide tentative evidence that this occurs under Democrats more than Republicans, though this overall difference may obscure important moderators. Our data provide evidence for tribal loyalty which may have significant social and political ramifications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":484348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,政治部落主义急剧增加。我们在假设和现实场景中探讨了民主党和共和党选民的党派双重标准。在研究1中,参与者根据2020年总统选举的假设和模糊结果,对选举结果的感知合法性进行了评级。在研究2的第一部分中,大学生和亚马逊土耳其志愿者对他们对现实世界总统政策和行动的支持程度进行了评分。所有的政策/行动都归因于特朗普或奥巴马,尽管它们实际上是在两位总统的领导下发生的。在研究2的第二部分中,参与者对各种陈述的偏执程度进行评分;我们操纵了这些言论是谁说的(特朗普诉比尔·克林顿或特朗普诉马丁·路德·金)。一般来说,在特朗普和民主党领导人的言论中,共和党的支持率更高,而民主党则相反。至关重要的是,这些偏见在评估相同的信息时存在。共和党人和民主党人分别有非常小和非常大的倾向,认为特朗普和马丁·路德·金的言论更加偏执。在某种程度上,这项研究可以回答哪一方更有双重标准的问题,我们的结果提供了初步证据,表明民主党人比共和党人更容易出现这种情况,尽管这种总体差异可能会掩盖重要的调节因素。我们的数据为部落忠诚提供了证据,这可能会产生重大的社会和政治后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tribalism in American Politics: Are Partisans Guilty of Double-Standards?
Political tribalism has increased dramatically in recent years. We explored partisan double-standards of Democratic and Republican voters across both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. In Study 1, participants rated the perceived legitimacy of election outcomes in response to hypothetical and ambiguous results from the 2020 presidential election. In Study 2 Part 1, college students and Amazon Turk volunteers rated their support of real-world presidential policies and actions. All policies/actions were attributed to Trump or Obama though they actually occurred under both presidents. In Study 2 Part 2, participants rated how bigoted various statements were; we manipulated who the utterances were attributed to (Trump v. Bill Clinton or Trump v. Martin Luther King [MLK]). Generally, Republican ratings were more favorable when statements were attributed to Trump vs. Democratic leaders while the opposite is true of Democrats. Crucially, these biases exist when evaluating identical information. Republicans and Democrats had a very small and very large tendency, respectively, to view statements as more bigoted under Trump vs. MLK. To the degree that this study can answer the question about which side is more guilty of double-standards, our results provide tentative evidence that this occurs under Democrats more than Republicans, though this overall difference may obscure important moderators. Our data provide evidence for tribal loyalty which may have significant social and political ramifications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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