识别意识形态上的相似和态度上的不同

Emily Kubin, M. Brandt
{"title":"识别意识形态上的相似和态度上的不同","authors":"Emily Kubin, M. Brandt","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/wfbcv","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Liberals and conservatives disagree, but are there some domains where we are more or less likely to observe ideological differences? To map the types of attitudes where we may be more or less likely to observe ideological differences, we draw on two approaches, the elective affinities approach, which suggests individual differences explains differences between liberals and conservatives, and the divergent content approach, which posits the key distinction between ideologues are their value orientations. The goal of the current research was to explore when and why liberals and conservatives disagree. We tested whether ideological differences are more likely to emerge in attitudes characterized by threat, complexity, morality, political ideology, religious ideology, or harm (as compared to objects not characterized by these domains) using both explicit and implicit measures of 190 attitude objects. While all domains predicted ideological differences, the political domain was the only significant predictor of ideological differences when controlling for the other domains. This study provides insight into which attitudes we are most and least likely to find ideological differences.","PeriodicalId":37202,"journal":{"name":"Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying the domains of ideological similarities and differences in attitudes\",\"authors\":\"Emily Kubin, M. Brandt\",\"doi\":\"10.31234/osf.io/wfbcv\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Liberals and conservatives disagree, but are there some domains where we are more or less likely to observe ideological differences? To map the types of attitudes where we may be more or less likely to observe ideological differences, we draw on two approaches, the elective affinities approach, which suggests individual differences explains differences between liberals and conservatives, and the divergent content approach, which posits the key distinction between ideologues are their value orientations. The goal of the current research was to explore when and why liberals and conservatives disagree. We tested whether ideological differences are more likely to emerge in attitudes characterized by threat, complexity, morality, political ideology, religious ideology, or harm (as compared to objects not characterized by these domains) using both explicit and implicit measures of 190 attitude objects. While all domains predicted ideological differences, the political domain was the only significant predictor of ideological differences when controlling for the other domains. This study provides insight into which attitudes we are most and least likely to find ideological differences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wfbcv\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wfbcv","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

自由派和保守派意见不一,但在某些领域,我们或多或少会观察到意识形态上的差异吗?为了描绘出我们可能或多或少观察到意识形态差异的态度类型,我们借鉴了两种方法,一种是选择性亲和力方法,它表明个体差异解释了自由派和保守派之间的差异,另一种是分歧内容方法,它假定意识形态之间的关键区别在于他们的价值取向。当前研究的目的是探索自由派和保守派何时以及为何会产生分歧。我们测试了意识形态差异是否更可能出现在以威胁、复杂性、道德、政治意识形态、宗教意识形态或伤害为特征的态度中(与不以这些领域为特征的对象相比),使用了190个态度对象的显性和隐性测量方法。虽然所有领域都能预测意识形态差异,但在控制其他领域的情况下,政治领域是唯一能预测意识形态差异的显著因素。这项研究提供了我们最可能和最不可能发现意识形态差异的态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying the domains of ideological similarities and differences in attitudes
Liberals and conservatives disagree, but are there some domains where we are more or less likely to observe ideological differences? To map the types of attitudes where we may be more or less likely to observe ideological differences, we draw on two approaches, the elective affinities approach, which suggests individual differences explains differences between liberals and conservatives, and the divergent content approach, which posits the key distinction between ideologues are their value orientations. The goal of the current research was to explore when and why liberals and conservatives disagree. We tested whether ideological differences are more likely to emerge in attitudes characterized by threat, complexity, morality, political ideology, religious ideology, or harm (as compared to objects not characterized by these domains) using both explicit and implicit measures of 190 attitude objects. While all domains predicted ideological differences, the political domain was the only significant predictor of ideological differences when controlling for the other domains. This study provides insight into which attitudes we are most and least likely to find ideological differences.
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
Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology
Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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