Suchergebnisse

Decades of scholarship have identified several determinants of political intolerance, including authoritarianism and normative threat. Previous attempts in the literature to associate other individual difference variables (i.e., social dominance orientation [SDO]) and situational variables (i.e., out-groups' gains in power and status) have been unsuccessful. Using a dual-process motivational (DPM) model framework, in Study 1 we found that SDO predicted political intolerance of groups with hierarchy-attenuating political objectives. This relationship was consistent over and above other well-known predictors of political intolerance, including right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). RWA predicted intolerance of groups with both hierarchy-attenuating and cohesion-reducing objectives. In Study 2, we manipulated whether an immigrant-rights group was described as presenting a normative threat or as gaining power and status. Consistent with extant findings, RWA moderated the effect of normative threat on political intolerance. More interestingly, SDO moderated the effect of gains in power and status on political intolerance. The implications of these findings are discussed. Adapted from the source document.

Research recently published in Political Psychology suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion. Participants provided intolerance judgments of several targets and the political objective of these targets (left-wing vs. right-wing) was varied between subjects. Across seven judgments, conservatism predicted intolerance of left-wing targets, while liberalism predicted intolerance of right-wing targets. These relationships were fully mediated by perceived threat from targets. Moreover, participants were biased against directly opposing political targets: conservatives were more intolerant of a left-wing target than the opposing right-wing target (e.g., pro-gay vs. anti-gay rights activists), while liberals were more intolerant of a right-wing target than the opposing left-wing target. These findings are discussed within the context of the existing political intolerance and motivated reasoning literatures. Adapted from the source document.

Research recently published in Political Psychology suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion. Participants provided intolerance judgments of several targets and the political objective of these targets (left‐wing vs. right‐wing) was varied between subjects. Across seven judgments, conservatism predicted intolerance of left‐wing targets, while liberalism predicted intolerance of right‐wing targets. These relationships were fully mediated by perceived threat from targets. Moreover, participants were biased against directly opposing political targets: conservatives were more intolerant of a left‐wing target than the opposing right‐wing target (e.g., pro‐gay vs. anti‐gay rights activists), while liberals were more intolerant of a right‐wing target than the opposing left‐wing target. These findings are discussed within the context of the existing political intolerance and motivated reasoning literatures.

Employing a dual process motivational (DPM) model perspective, we found that how political messages are framed influences the differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) on political candidate support in the United States. Study 1 (N = 85) found that RWA and SDO differentially predicted support for right-wing candidates who used cohesion and group status threats to frame same-sex marriage, respectively. Study 2 (N = 89) largely replicated those findings on immigration policy. In Study 3 (N = 128), the hypothesis that RWA and SDO negatively predicted support for left-wing candidates who framed same-sex marriage in terms of individual liberty and social equality, respectively, received partial support. Additional analyses indicated that the effects of RWA on candidate support in these studies were driven by specific theoretically-relevant dimensions of RWA. Together, these results indicate that candidates can enhance their appeal by strategically employing value-based political messages targeting different subsets of their constituency. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Employing a dual process motivational (DPM) model perspective, we found that how political messages are framed influences the differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) on political candidate support in the United States. Study 1 (N = 85) found that RWA and SDO differentially predicted support for right-wing candidates who used cohesion and group status threats to frame same-sex marriage, respectively. Study 2 (N = 89) largely replicated those findings on immigration policy. In Study 3 (N = 128), the hypothesis that RWA and SDO negatively predicted support for left-wing candidates who framed same-sex marriage in terms of individual liberty and social equality, respectively, received partial support. Additional analyses indicated that the effects of RWA on candidate support in these studies were driven by specific theoretically-relevant dimensions of RWA. Together, these results indicate that candidates can enhance their appeal by strategically employing value-based political messages targeting different subsets of their constituency.