以市场为基础的意识形态选择模式的成本与收益:回应消费者与批评者

IF 7.2 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Inquiry Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/1047840X.2022.2065135

J. Jost, Tom Gries, Veronika Müller

{"title":"以市场为基础的意识形态选择模式的成本与收益:回应消费者与批评者","authors":"J. Jost, Tom Gries, Veronika Müller","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2022.2065135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In a target article, we introduced a formal decision-making model of ideological choice to understand how individuals choose among alternatives in electoral contexts in which multiple parties and candidates compete to address voters’ material and psychological needs. In this rejoinder we respond to very thoughtful comments by Eibach; McDermott; Zmigrod; Molnar & Loewenstein, and Osborne, Satherley & Sibley. We also seek to correct a number of misrepresentations of the current state of knowledge in political psychology based on a few of the commentaries, especially that of Costello, Clark, and Tetlock. Finally, we revisit thorny questions of rationality and irrationality in the market for belief systems.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"33 1","pages":"123 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Costs and Benefits of a Market-Based Model of Ideological Choice: Responding to Consumers and Critics\",\"authors\":\"J. Jost, Tom Gries, Veronika Müller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1047840X.2022.2065135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In a target article, we introduced a formal decision-making model of ideological choice to understand how individuals choose among alternatives in electoral contexts in which multiple parties and candidates compete to address voters’ material and psychological needs. In this rejoinder we respond to very thoughtful comments by Eibach; McDermott; Zmigrod; Molnar & Loewenstein, and Osborne, Satherley & Sibley. We also seek to correct a number of misrepresentations of the current state of knowledge in political psychology based on a few of the commentaries, especially that of Costello, Clark, and Tetlock. Finally, we revisit thorny questions of rationality and irrationality in the market for belief systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Inquiry\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"123 - 137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2022.2065135\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2022.2065135","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

在一篇目标文章中，我们引入了一个意识形态选择的正式决策模型，以理解在多个政党和候选人竞争以满足选民的物质和心理需求的选举背景下，个人如何在备选方案中做出选择。在这个反驳中，我们回应了艾巴赫非常深思熟虑的评论;麦克德莫特;Zmigrod;Molnar & Loewenstein和Osborne, Satherley & Sibley。我们还试图根据一些评论，特别是科斯特洛、克拉克和泰特洛克的评论，纠正对政治心理学知识现状的一些误解。最后，我们重新审视信仰体系市场中理性与非理性的棘手问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Costs and Benefits of a Market-Based Model of Ideological Choice: Responding to Consumers and Critics

Abstract In a target article, we introduced a formal decision-making model of ideological choice to understand how individuals choose among alternatives in electoral contexts in which multiple parties and candidates compete to address voters’ material and psychological needs. In this rejoinder we respond to very thoughtful comments by Eibach; McDermott; Zmigrod; Molnar & Loewenstein, and Osborne, Satherley & Sibley. We also seek to correct a number of misrepresentations of the current state of knowledge in political psychology based on a few of the commentaries, especially that of Costello, Clark, and Tetlock. Finally, we revisit thorny questions of rationality and irrationality in the market for belief systems.

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

Psychological Inquiry PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

10.30

自引率

1.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Psychological Inquiry serves as an international journal dedicated to the advancement of psychological theory. Each edition features an extensive target article exploring a controversial or provocative topic, accompanied by peer commentaries and a response from the target author(s). Proposals for target articles must be submitted using the Target Article Proposal Form, and only approved proposals undergo peer review by at least three reviewers. Authors are invited to submit their full articles after the proposal has received approval from the Editor.