Ideological measurement in social and political psychology

Abstract

As the domains of social and personality psychological science undergo marked changes in their approach to research (e.g., open science practices, and addressing the replication crisis), it is important to undertake a full review of the tools and measures that we have at our disposal.In addition, the growing sense of political and ideological polarization in contemporary western democracies necessitates a coherent and internally consistent approach to studying politically and ideologically sensitive topics. This paper explores the measurement and study of such topics, and posits that claims about (a)symmetries between ideological partisans may be rooted in different measurement approaches. A more consistent and ecologically valid approach to studying partisan engagement with political topics is advocated, focusing on situational responses to ideologically salient scenarios, rather than placing our focus on results from decontextualized self-report individual difference measures. Suggestions for broader debiasing research reforms are also explored. Ideological measurement in social and political psychologyThe landscape of social psychology is currently undergoing some stark changes.Emerging practices to address the 'replication crisis' (Brandt et al., 2014;Lindsay, 2015) and the advent of increasingly open research practices, such as data-and materials-sharing, protocol and analytic pre-registration, and the peer-review of research plans before data are collected and results are known (Chambers, 2018;van't Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016; have led the field to consider some of the questionable research practices that have historically persisted in some spheres .Although these movements are clearly positive for the state of our science, they focus only on the higher-level processes associated with potential biases in research design and execution. This paper begins by looking at the 'nuts and bolts' of social and personality psychological research, as applied in the political domain, to explore potential sources of ideological bias in the conceptualization and interpretation of ideologies. That is, there is an argument to be made that our current approaches to studying similarities and differences between those from competing political or ideological persuasions (from here, these similarities and differences are referred to as 'political/ideological (a)symmetries') may contain epistemic biases on the part of the field in the aggregate. In doing so, a critique of commonly used measurement tools in the political psychology domain is offered, and further suggestions for alternative approaches to researching ideological (a)symmetries are offered that are consistent with the continuing the recent advances in social psychological research.

Ideological responses to the breaking of COVID-19 social distancing recommendations

“…It is in this opposition to the asymmetry conclusion that our data are situated. As opposed to the uncovering of asymmetries being the bedrock (and perhaps even the aim) of political psychology (as argued by Jost, 2017), we believe that by altering the ideological salience of stimuli it is possible to observe behavioral symmetry across the ideological spectrum (see also Brandt, 2017;Brandt & Crawford, 2019;Crawford, 2014;Elad-Strenger et al, 2020;Harper, 2020a;Kessler et al, 2015). In the current study we have been able to uncover a seemingly ideologically motivated hypocrisy in judgements of COVID-19 rule breaking in the context of social distancing.…”

“…In accordance with research into ideological (a)symmetries (for reviews, see Ditto et al, 2019;Jost, 2017) it may be expected that those on the political right will be more punitive about those who act counter to the guidance, as this group is more likely to respond negatively to rule-breakers (Frimer et al, 2014). However, research that has examined ideological (a)symmetries using a range of ideologically salient stimuli, alongside situational outcomes measures, typically reports how ideological partisans respond to ingroups and outgroups in symmetric ways (for a review, see Harper, 2020a). For this reason, we expect to find a symmetry in our data, with ideological conservatives responding more leniently to ostensibly conservative-aligned rule breakers, and ideological liberals responding more leniently to ostensibly liberal-aligned rule breakers.…”

Ideology: The Psychological and Social Foundations of Belief Systems

“…With respect to the relationship between cultural conservatism and many dispositional measures of rigidity and threat sensitivity, this pattern seems to be well-supported (see Jost, 2009Jost, , 2017. At the same time, other research suggests that situational manifestations of rigidity may be more symmetric in their distribution across the ideological spectrum (Harper, 2020; see also Conway et al, 2018;Costello et al, 2021). Specifically, despite well-established ideological asymmetries in dispositions, individuals on both the right and the left may become defensive, rigid, and intolerant when the validity of established political identities or attitudes are threatened or challenged.…”

Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

“…Open Science in Qualitative Early Career Research. Moreover, while there is no one distinct feminist research method (Harding, 1989) and no one methodology can be more feminist than another (Peplau & Conrad, 1989), feminist scholars in psychology tend to use qualitative methodologies (Eagly & Riger, 2014). This is largely due to how qualitative methodology holds unique potential to ask, address, and analyze feminist research questions (Eagly & Riger, 2014;Gergen, 2008).…”

“…It is important that efforts to include feminist researchers into the open science community do not inadvertently replace one kind of ideological bias with another. Rigorous and theoretically robust science should ideally champion ideological and epistemological diversity (Harper, 2020). Therefore, while we demonstrate how one kind of ideology may be negotiated in unique ways in the context of open science, efforts to support ideological diversity in a non-hostile way that does not silence or marginalize should also be more widely considered.…”