scholarly journals Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic reflect the dual evolutionary foundations of political ideology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Fischer ◽  
Ananish Chaudhuri ◽  
Quentin Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Political Ideology ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Popular View ◽  
Social Conservatism ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Social Conservatives

A popular view, supported by several studies, is that liberals are more concerned than conservatives about COVID-19. This is puzzling given the strong pandemic responses from some conservative nations, and the well-established link between conservatism and threat-sensitivity. We argue a resolution is provided by the dual evolutionary foundations of political ideology, which track trade-offs between: (1) threat-driven group conformity (social conservatism or right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]) vs. individual autonomy (social progressivism); and (2) a competitive motivation for hierarchy (economic conservatism or social dominance orientation [SDO]) vs. cooperation (economic progressivism). Using longitudinal data from a UK sample (n=433), we show that social (RWA), but not economic (SDO), conservatism significantly increased following the pandemic, and self-reported worry about the pandemic predicts this effect. Moreover, both social conservatives and economic progressives display strong responses to COVID-19, but for different reasons. While social conservatives generally display more worried and conformist/norm-enforcing responses, economic progressives display more cooperative, empathic responses and only worried or conformist/norm-enforcing responses related to empathy. These findings provide an explanation for apparently inconsistent results of prior work, support the dual foundations model of political ideology, and offer insight into divergent motives across the ideological landscape that may be useful for managing pandemic response.

scholarly journals Experiments in political psychology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Fischer ◽  
Quentin Atkinson ◽  
Ananish Chaudhuri
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Ultimatum Game ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
The Social ◽  
Orientation Scale ◽  
The Right ◽  
Social Conservatism

This chapter provides an overview of studies that use incentivised experiments to study political ideology. We look first at studies that conceptualise political ideology along a unidimensional liberal-conservative spectrum and explore whether there are behavioural differences between liberals and conservatives. While recent studies find that liberals display more pro-sociality, many other studies find that liberals and conservatives display similar levels of pro-social, ingroup-biased, normative, and punitive behaviour. We then turn to experiments that study two-dimensional political ideology as embodied in the concepts of economic conservatism/progressivism (often measured with the Social Dominance Orientation scale) and social conservatism/progressivism (usually measured with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale). In such experiments, economic conservatives display lower levels of pro-sociality and universalism and greater tolerance of inequality and tendencies to harm outgroups. Social conservatives tend to display “groupishness”, including distrusting anonymous strangers, cooperating with ingroup members, following rules, punishing in the ultimatum game, and sometimes harming outgroups.

scholarly journals Perbedaan Individual pada Ideologi Politik Berbasis Agama

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Ilmi Amalia
Keyword(s):  
Political Ideology ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Personality Types ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Political Ideologies ◽  
Convenience Sampling ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn practicing worship almost all Muslims run in the same manner but in Indonesia also found the diversity of the face of Islam. One form of diversity is how to see religion as a political ideology. From various views political ideologies based on Islamic religion have polarizations, namely secular and radical Islamism. How to explain the diversity of ideologies based on individual differences. Jost et al (2009) offer three basic needs that determine individual ideological differences, namely the need for epistemic, the need for existential, and the need for relational. In addition to differences in the concept of fundamental needs, studies also show a relationship between personality types and ideological or political attitudes. Duckitt & Sibley (2010) offers a dual-process motivational model that explains that political ideology is formed due to interactions between personalities and different social situations. Many studies have been conducted to see the relationship between ideology with liberal and conservative polarization (right / left) or right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) with different needs or personality types (Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008; Jost et al., 2007; Sibley, Osborne, & Duckitt, 2012). However, no research has been conducted on political ideologies based on religion, especially Islam. The study was conducted on 243 Muslims and aged 17 years and over. Questionnaires were distributed in the Greater Jakarta area online and offline. The sampling technique used convenience sampling. Then the data is processed using regression analysis techniques. The results showed that together, the need for epistemic, need for existential, need for relational, and Big five personality influenced Islamic political ideology with a contribution of 7.2%. Significant predictors of the relationship are need for existential and need for relational. AbstrakDalam pelaksanaan ibadah hampir semua umat Islam menjalankan dengan tata cara yang sama namun di Indonesia ditemukan juga keanekaragaman wajah Islam. Salah satu bentuk keanekaragaman tersebut adalah bagaimana melihat agama sebagai suatu ideologi politik. Dari berbagai macam pandangan dapat dilihat bahwa ideologi politik yang berbasis agama Islam memiliki polarisasi yaitu sekuler dan radikal Islamisme. Bagaimana menjelaskan keragaman ideologi tersebut berdasarkan perbedaan individual. Jost dkk (2009) menawarkan adanya tiga kebutuhan mendasar yang menentukan perbedaan ideologi individu yaitu need for epistemic, need for existential, dan need for relational. Selain pada perbedaan pada konsep kebutuhan mendasar, studi juga menunjukkan adanya hubungan tipe kepribadian dan ideologi atau sikap politik. Duckitt & Sibley (2010) menawarkan model dual-process motivational yang menjelaskan bahwa ideologi politik terbentuk akibat interaksi antara kepribadian dan situasi sosial yang berbeda. Studi telah banyak dilakukan untuk melihat hubungan ideologi dengan polarisasi liberal dan konservatif (kanan/kiri) atau right wing authoritarianism (RWA) dan social dominance orientation (SDO) dengan perbedaan kebutuhan atau tipe kepribadian (Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008; Jost et al., 2007; Sibley, Osborne, & Duckitt, 2012). Namun demikian, belum ada riset yang dilakukan pada ideologi politik yang berlandaskan pada agama terutama Islam. Studi dilakukan pada 243 Muslim dan berumur 17 tahun ke atas. Kuesioner disebarkan di daerah Jabodetabek secara daring dan luring. Teknik pengambilan sampel digunakan convenience sampling. Kemudian data diolah dengan teknik analisis regresi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan secara bersama-sama, need for epistemic, need for existential, need for relational, dan Big five personality mempengaruhi ideologi politik Islam dengan kontribusi sebesar 7,2 %. Prediktor yang signifikan hubungannya adalah need for existential dan need for relational.

scholarly journals Why do we argue about science? Exploring the psychological antecedents of rejection of science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
John Richard Kerr
Keyword(s):  
Political Ideology ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Social Media Data ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
First Time ◽  
Media Data

<p>Science is recognised and accepted as an important tool for understanding the world in which we live, yet some people hold beliefs that go against the best available scientific evidence. For example, many people believe human-caused climate change is not occurring, or that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous.  Previous research has investigated a range of possible drivers of this ‘rejection of science’ (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013), including ignorance, distrust of scientists, and ideological motivations. The studies in this thesis extend this line of inquiry, focusing first on the role of perceptions of scientific agreement. I report experimental evidence that people base their beliefs on ‘what they think scientists think’ (Study 1). However, an analysis of longitudinal data (Study 2) suggests that our personal beliefs may also skew our perceptions of scientific agreement. While the results of Study 1 and Study 2 somewhat conflict, they do converge on one finding: perceptions of consensus alone do not fully explain rejection of science.  In the remainder of the thesis I cast a wider net, examining how ideological beliefs are linked to rejection of science. Study 3 draws on social media data to reveal that political ideology is associated with rejection of science in the context of who people choose to follow on the platform Twitter. A final set of studies (4, 5, and 6) examine the role of two motivational antecedents of political ideology, Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), in rejection of science across five publicly debated issues. I also explore several potential mediators which might explain these effects. I report, for the first time, that RWA and SDO predict rejection of science across a range of issues and one mediator emerges as a consistent link: distrust of scientists. People who are less opposed to authoritarian (RWA) or hierarchical (SDO) values are less trusting of scientists and, in turn, more likely to reject specific scientific findings. I discuss potential strategies to address or circumvent this ideologically-motivated distrust of science.  Taken as whole, this thesis extends our understanding of why people disagree with an established scientific consensus on socially important issues. Knowledge of the scientific consensus matters, but our deeper beliefs about society can also draw us closer to, or push us further from evidence-based conclusions.</p>

scholarly journals Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict rejection of science and scientists

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 550-567
Author(s):  
John R. Kerr ◽  
Marc S. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Scientific Issue ◽  
Ideological Attitudes ◽  
First Time ◽  
Conspiracy Thinking

Previous research has highlighted how ideological factors such as political self-identification, religiosity and conspiracy thinking influence our beliefs about scientific issues such as climate change and vaccination. Across three studies (combined N = 9,022) we expand on this line of inquiry to show for the first time that the ideological attitudes relating to authoritarianism and group-based dominance predict disagreement with the scientific consensus in several scientific domains. We show these effects are almost entirely mediated by varying combinations of ideological (political ideology, religiosity, free-market endorsement, conspiracy thinking) and science-specific (scientific knowledge, trust in scientists) constructs, depending on the scientific issue in question. Importantly, a general distrust of science and scientists emerges as the most consistent mediator across different scientific domains. We find that, consistent with previous research, the ideological roots of rejection of science vary across scientific issues. However, we also show that these roots may share a common origin in ideological attitudes regarding authority and equality.

Attitudes towards tall poppies: the role of Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, political ideologies, and self-esteem in New Zealand.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew Marques ◽  
Norman T. Feather ◽  
Darren E. J. Austin ◽  
Chris G Sibley
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
High Status ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Political Ideologies

Individuals occupying high-status positions are sometimes victims of the tall poppy syndrome where people want to see them cut down to size. These attitudes reflect a tension between achievement, authority, and equality. In a pre-registered study (Study 1: N = 47,951), and a replication (Study 2: N = 5,569), of two representative New Zealand samples we investigated how social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, political ideologies and self-esteem predicted favoring the fall of the tall poppy. Novel findings showed individuals high in social dominance orientation favored the fall of the tall poppy. In both studies, high authoritarian aggression and submission, and low conventionalism (in Study 1 only) were also associated with negative tall poppy attitudes. So too were individuals with lower self-esteem and who were less conservative in their political ideology. These findings advance our understanding of how group-based hierarchy and inequality relate to attitudes towards individuals in high status positions.

scholarly journals Why do we argue about science? Exploring the psychological antecedents of rejection of science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
John Richard Kerr
Keyword(s):  
Political Ideology ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Social Media Data ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
First Time ◽  
Media Data

<p>Science is recognised and accepted as an important tool for understanding the world in which we live, yet some people hold beliefs that go against the best available scientific evidence. For example, many people believe human-caused climate change is not occurring, or that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous.  Previous research has investigated a range of possible drivers of this ‘rejection of science’ (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013), including ignorance, distrust of scientists, and ideological motivations. The studies in this thesis extend this line of inquiry, focusing first on the role of perceptions of scientific agreement. I report experimental evidence that people base their beliefs on ‘what they think scientists think’ (Study 1). However, an analysis of longitudinal data (Study 2) suggests that our personal beliefs may also skew our perceptions of scientific agreement. While the results of Study 1 and Study 2 somewhat conflict, they do converge on one finding: perceptions of consensus alone do not fully explain rejection of science.  In the remainder of the thesis I cast a wider net, examining how ideological beliefs are linked to rejection of science. Study 3 draws on social media data to reveal that political ideology is associated with rejection of science in the context of who people choose to follow on the platform Twitter. A final set of studies (4, 5, and 6) examine the role of two motivational antecedents of political ideology, Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), in rejection of science across five publicly debated issues. I also explore several potential mediators which might explain these effects. I report, for the first time, that RWA and SDO predict rejection of science across a range of issues and one mediator emerges as a consistent link: distrust of scientists. People who are less opposed to authoritarian (RWA) or hierarchical (SDO) values are less trusting of scientists and, in turn, more likely to reject specific scientific findings. I discuss potential strategies to address or circumvent this ideologically-motivated distrust of science.  Taken as whole, this thesis extends our understanding of why people disagree with an established scientific consensus on socially important issues. Knowledge of the scientific consensus matters, but our deeper beliefs about society can also draw us closer to, or push us further from evidence-based conclusions.</p>

scholarly journals The Politics of Vaccine Hesitancy: An Ideological Dual-Process Approach

2021 ◽  
pp. 194855062110552
Author(s):  
Michał Bilewicz ◽  
Wiktor Soral
Keyword(s):  
Political Ideology ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
International Study ◽  
Process Approach ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Political Ideologies ◽  
And Behavior

Ideological convictions are known to shape attitudes and behavior in various life domains. Based on existing psychological analyses of political ideology, we use an ideological dual-process approach to explain people’s vaccine hesitancy, which distinguishes between authoritarian (right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]) and hierarchical (social dominance orientation [SDO]) facets of conservatism as potential antecedents of vaccination attitudes. In a large international study performed in Germany ( N = 1,210), Poland ( N = 1,209), and the United Kingdom ( N = 1,222), we tested the roles of SDO and RWA in predicting vaccination hesitancy, as well as cross-cultural universality of the pattern of relationships between political ideologies and attitudes toward vaccines. In all three countries, high SDO was associated with higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas high RWA was associated with lower vaccine hesitancy. These findings contribute to our understanding of the distinctive roles that these two facets of right-wing ideology might play in the domain of public health.

scholarly journals First Impressions of Faces of Refugees Are More Strongly Influenced by Target Cues and Perceiver Attitudes Than by Sheer Group Affiliation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joscha Stecker ◽  
Paul C. Bürkner ◽  
Jens H. Hellmann ◽  
Steffen Nestler ◽  
Mitja D. Back
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Group Affiliation ◽  
Total N ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism

The importance of first impressions for various intrapersonal, social and societal outcomes is well established. First impressions towards refugees as individual members of one of the most heatedly discussed social groups in Western societies should play a key role in facilitating or impeding successful social integration. However, this issue is currently underexplored. To help understand first impressions towards refugee individuals, we conducted two studies, in which German perceivers (total N = 938) evaluated 60 (Study 1) or 48 (Study 2) male target photos of Western individuals (presented as Germans) and Middle Eastern individuals (presented as refugees). In Study 2, we included information about targets’ religious affiliations (Christian, Muslim) and religiousness (weakly religious, devout). Targets’ facial characteristics (physical attractiveness, smiling) were coded, and perceiver attitudes (right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, right-wing political ideology) were assessed. Results showed (a) no overall devaluation of refugees or Muslims, (b) strong effects of target attractiveness and smiling on evaluations across individuals of different group affiliations, (c) strong effects of perceiver attitudes towards refugees and Muslims, and (d) no interactive effects of perceiver attitudes and target cues on evaluations. It is important to note that these results should not be interpreted as any doubt about the profound experiences of discrimination and prejudices faced by minorities such as refugees. Instead, they underline the utility of an individual differences approach to better understand the circumstances under which devaluations of minoritized individuals suchs as refugees are amplified or reduced.

scholarly journals First Impressions of Refugees are More Strongly Influenced by Target Cues and Perceiver Attitudes Than by Sheer Group Affiliation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joscha Stecker ◽  
Paul - Christian Bürkner ◽  
Jens Hellmann ◽  
Steffen Nestler ◽  
Mitja Back
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
First Impressions ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Group Affiliation ◽  
Total N ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism

The importance of first impressions for various intrapersonal, social and societal outcomes is well established. Although, first impressions towards refugees as individual members one of the most heatedly discussed social groups in Western societies, should play a key role in facilitating or impeding successful social integration, this issue is currently underexplored. To help understanding first impressions towards refugee individuals, we conducted two studies, in which German perceivers (total N = 938) evaluated 60 (Study 1) and 48 (Study 2) male target photos of Western individuals (presented as Germans) and Middle Eastern individuals (presented as refugees). In Study 2, we included information about targets’ religious affilliations (Christian, Muslim) and religiousness (weakly religious, devout). Targets’ facial characteristics (physical attractiveness, smiling) were coded, and perceiver attitudes (right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, political ideology) were assessed. Results showed (a) no overall devaluation of refugees or Muslims, (b) strong effects of target attractiveness and smiling on evaluations across individuals of different group affiliations, (c) strong effects of perceiver attitudes towards refugees and Muslims, and (d) no interactive effects of perceiver attitudes and target cues on evaluations. Together, these findings underline the utility of an individual difference approach to better understand evaluations of refugees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document