Left-Right Ideological Differences in Blaming Victims

Williams, Sarah E.

doi:10.2307/3791228

Cited by 76 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study of emotional reactions to welfare recipients, Williams (1984) found that people who were classified as conservatives on the basis of scores on Tomkins's (1964Tomkins's ( /1988) Polarity Scale expressed greater disgust and less sympathy than did their liberal counterparts. A study of high school students also indicated that political conservatives were less likely than liberals to describe themselves as "sympathetic," and conservative boys (but not girls) were less likely to describe themselves as "loving," "tender," and "mellow" (Eisenberg-Berg & Mussen, 1980).…”

Section: Pessimism Disgust and Contemptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.

Jost¹,

Glaser²,

Kruglanski³

et al. 2003

Psychological Bulletin

3,777

247

3,256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r ϭ .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.Conservatism is a demanding mistress and is giving me a migraine.-George F. Will, BuntsFor more than half a century, psychologists have been tracking the hypothesis that different psychological motives and tendencies underlie ideological differences between the political left and the right. The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began with Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford's (1950) landmark study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality. An asymmetrical focus on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) was criticized heavily on theoretical and methodological grounds (e.g., Christie, 1954;Eysenck, 1954;Rokeach, 1960;Shils, 1954), but it has withstood the relentless tests of time and empirical scrutiny (e.g., Altemeyer, 1981Altemeyer, , 1988Altemeyer, , 1996Altemeyer, , 1998Billig, 1984;Brown, 1965;Christie, 1991;Elms, 1969;Sidanius, 1985;W. F. Stone, 1980;W. F. Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993;Tetlock, 1984;Wilson, 1973c). A voluminous literature, which we review here, facilitates the comparison of cognitive styles and motivational needs of political conservatives with those of moderates, liberals, radicals, and left-wingers. In addition to classic and contemporary approaches to authoritarianism, we cover less obvious sources of theory and research on individual differences associated with dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, and social dominance orientation (SDO) insofar as each of these psychological variables contributes to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of political conservatism.The study of authoritarianism and other personality theories of political attitudes is often dismissed a priori as an illegitimate, value-laden attempt to correlate general psychological profiles with specific ideological beliefs (e.g., Durrheim, 1997; J. L. Martin, 2001;Ray, 1988). The psychological study of ideological conservatism is one that invites controversy (e.g., Redding, 2001;Sears, 1994;Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996;Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986;Tetlock, 1994;Tetlock & Mitchell,...

show abstract

Section: Pessimism Disgust and Contemptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.

Jost¹,

Glaser²,

Kruglanski³

et al. 2003

Psychological Bulletin

3,777

247

3,256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abelson (1968Abelson ( , 1973 and Kelley (1983) have referred to the construct as implicational molecules, political scripts, and perceived causal structures, respectively. (See also Axelrod, 1976;Conover & Feldman, 1984;George, 1979;Hoagland & Walker, 1979;Schank & Abelson, 1977;Williams, 1984. ) Although the concept of CKS has been used to explain many judgments and inference phenomena, tests of CKSs are relatively scarce, and the few existing ones have been criticized on numerous grounds.…”

Section: Toward Validating Causal Knowledge Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Political ideology has been conceptualized as a "core belief system" (Lane, 1973), "ideological principles" (Marcus, Tabb, & Sullivan, 1974), "general ideological dimensions" (Jackson & Marcus, 1975), and "general political orientations" (Thomas, 1978) . Other views of political ideology include people's causal accounts of poverty (Feather, 1974;Furnham, 1982a) and unemployment (Furnham, 1982b;Williams, 1984; see also Axelrod, 1976;Conover & Feldman, 1984;George, 1979;Hoagland & Walker, 1979). The present perspective is certainly compatible with the above-noted ones.…”

Section: Implications For Political Ideologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Causal Explanations of Defection: A Knowledge Structure Approach

Sedikides

Anderson

1992

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These ideological differences in attributions for poverty predict a willingness to expand social programs. Liberals generally favor increased spending on social programs, whereas conservatives oppose such spending (Feather, 1985;Kluegel, 1990;Kluegel & Smith, 1986;Williams, 1984). Linda J. Skitka, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville; Philip E. Tetlock, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%