Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- 37 Political Psychology in the Global South
- 38 Political Psychology in the Arab Region
- 39 Critical Perspectives in Political Psychology
- 40 Rethinking Group Dynamics
- 41 Two Sides of the Same Coin
- Index
- References
41 - Two Sides of the Same Coin
A New Look at Differences and Similarities across Political Ideology
from Part IV - Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- 37 Political Psychology in the Global South
- 38 Political Psychology in the Arab Region
- 39 Critical Perspectives in Political Psychology
- 40 Rethinking Group Dynamics
- 41 Two Sides of the Same Coin
- Index
- References
Summary
Traditionally, one of the main focuses of political psychology has been to identify the motives, needs, and other deep psychological differences shape ideological differences between liberals and conservatives bottom-up. We review this literature and offer some critique of it. Next, we argue that rather than trying to test how deep psychological differences produce ideological differences, it may be more fruitful to test how liberals’ and conservatives’ support for and opposition to specific political policies depends on how these policies are construed. We propose that this top-down approach not only offers methodological and theoretical advantages, while requiring less theoretical assumptions, but also may have the applied benefit of allowing the field to help opponents understand the reason for their mutual opposition and identify routes to increase cooperation across the ideological divide. This can help political psychology be a force that promotes overcoming partisan polarisation and increasing mutual understanding.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology , pp. 674 - 686Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abramowitz, S. I. (1973). Internal-external control and social-political activism: A test of the dimensionality of Rotter’s internal-external scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40(2), 196–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034483CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1246–1247. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1979CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, M., & Lammers, J. (2016). Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(52), 14953–14957. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610834113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bovenberg, A. L. (1999). Green tax reforms and the double dividend: An updated reader’s guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 6(3), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008715920337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932Google Scholar
Brownstein, R. (2010). GOP gives climate science a cold shoulder. National Journal, 42(41), 52.Google Scholar
Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047470Google Scholar
Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963Google Scholar
Chambers, J. R., Schlenker, B. R., & Collisson, B. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612447820Google Scholar
Cichocka, A., Bilewicz, M., Jost, J. T., Marrouch, N., & Witkowska, M. (2016). On the grammar of politics – or why conservatives prefer nouns. Political Psychology, 37(6), 799–815. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12327Google Scholar
Conway, L. G., Gornick, L. J., Houck, S. C., et al. (2016). Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37(6), 777–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12304Google Scholar
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Malka, A., Baldwin, M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2020). On conservatism and rigidity: A synthesis and meta-analytic review [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Emory University.Google Scholar
Cramton, P., MacKay, D. J. C., Ockenfels, A., & Stoft, S. (2017). Global carbon pricing: The path to climate cooperation. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. T. (2017). Are conservatives more sensitive to threat than liberals? It depends on how we define threat and conservatism. Social Cognition, 35(4), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. T., & Pilanski, J. M. (2014). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology, 35(6), 841–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00926.xGoogle Scholar
Crowson, H. M., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. (2005). Is political conservatism synonymous with authoritarianism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(5), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.5.571-592CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, Article e130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E., & Gale, R. P. (1974). Party membership and environmental politics: A legislative roll-call analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 55(3), 670–690.Google Scholar
Eccleshall, R. (1990). English conservatism since the Restoration: An introduction and anthology. Routledge.Google Scholar
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of ‘system-sanctioned change’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere – not only in neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611400237Google Scholar
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449177Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation – the left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376Google Scholar
Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 319–359). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gromet, D. M., Kunreuther, H., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(23), 9314–9319. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218453110Google Scholar
Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2007). The social and political views of American professors [Paper presented at a Harvard University Symposium on Professors and Their Politics].Google Scholar
Guber, D. L. (2013). A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463361Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-zGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x13001192Google Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., Peterson, J. C., & Feher, B. (2014). The deeper sources of political conflict: Evidence from the psychological, cognitive, and neuro-sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 111–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.010Google Scholar
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612448792Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Amodio, D. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jost, J. T., & Krochik, M. (2014). Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: Implications for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. In Elliot, A. J. (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 1, pp. 181–231). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Sterling, J., & Stern, C. (2017). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In Kopetz, C. E. & Fishbach, A. (Eds.), The motivation-cognition interface (pp. 56–87). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., Stern, C., Rule, N. O., & Sterling, J. (2017). The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation. Social Cognition, 35(4), 324–353. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.324Google Scholar
Kay, A. C., Wheeler, S. C., Bargh, J. A., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, T., Proch, J., Hechler, S., & Nägler, L. A. (2015). Political diversity versus stimuli diversity: Alternative ways to improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, Article e148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14001241Google Scholar
Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2009). Groupthink in academia: Majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid. The Independent Review, 13(4), 585–600.Google Scholar
Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963Google Scholar
Lammers, J., & Baldwin, M. (2018). Past-focused temporal communication overcomes conservatives’ resistance to liberal political ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000121Google Scholar
Lammers, J., Koch, A., Conway, P., & Brandt, M. J. (2017). The political domain appears simpler to the politically extreme than to political moderates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678456Google Scholar
Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ’field at a given time’. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062738Google Scholar
Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1175–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264004Google Scholar
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691610375557Google Scholar
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of political ideology and unequal riches. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McClosky, H., & Chong, D. (1985). Similarities and differences between left-wing and right-wing radicals. British Journal of Political Science, 15(3), 329–363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400004221Google Scholar
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.xGoogle Scholar
McCright, A. M., Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2014). Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012. Social Science Research, 48, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nivola, P. S., & Brady, D. W. (2008). Red and blue nation?: Consequences and correction of America’s polarized politics (Vol. 2). Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Dhont, K., & Pattyn, S. (2013). Internal and external threat in relationship with right-wing attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12011Google Scholar
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., et al. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321(5896), 1667–1670. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157627Google Scholar
Rock, M. S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2010). Where do we draw our lines? Politics, rigidity, and the role of self-regulation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609347386Google Scholar
Rokeach, M. (1956). Political and religious dogmatism: An alternative to the authoritarian personality. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(18), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093727Google Scholar
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology (McGraw-Hill series in social psychology). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. R. (2008). The vanishing conservative: Is there a glass ceiling. In Maranto, R., Redding, R. E., & Hess, F. M. (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms (pp. 60–76). AEI Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. L. (2009). The conservative century: From reaction to revolution. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2009). Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli, and attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 995–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.003Google Scholar
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.118Google Scholar
Unsworth, K. L., & Fielding, K. S. (2014). It’s political: How the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change, 27, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002Google Scholar
van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2020). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychology, 42(1), 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12681Google Scholar
Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., & De Pauw, S. (2010). The relationship between social‐cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta‐analytic integration of studies. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1765–1800. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00669.xGoogle Scholar
van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2017). Extreme political beliefs predict dogmatic intolerance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671403Google Scholar
van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., Boiten, M., & Eendebak, L. (2015). Fear among the extremes: How political ideology predicts negative emotions and outgroup derogation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569706Google Scholar
van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023253Google Scholar
Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R., & Judd, C. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569849Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by