The Impact of Uncertainty, Threat, and Political Identity on Support for Political Compromise

Haas, Ingrid Johnsen

doi:10.1080/01973533.2016.1169181

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that individuals who score higher on measures of system justification are also more likely to espouse conservative beliefs (for a review see Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004), the amygdala findings across these studies appear to be consistent. While these findings with respect to brain POLITICAL NEUROSCIENCE 11 structure are consistent with work showing differences in emotional processing between liberals and conservatives (Haas, 2016a;Hibbing et al, 2014), as well as differences in conflict detection (Amodio, Jost, Master, & Yee, 2007;Haas, Baker, & Gonzalez, 2017;Weissflog, Choma, Dywan, van Noordt, & Segalowitz, 2013), it is important to note that the link between these structural differences and brain function has not yet been examined directly in this context.…”

Section: Political Ideologysupporting

confidence: 76%

Political neuroscience: Understanding how the brain makes political decisions

Haas¹,

Warren²,

Lauf³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research in political psychology and biopolitics has begun to incorporate theory and methods from cognitive neuroscience. The emerging interdisciplinary field of political neuroscience (or neuropolitics) is focused on understanding the neural mechanisms underlying political information processing and decision making. Most of the existing work in this area has utilized structural magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, or electroencephalography, and focused on understanding areas of the brain commonly implicated in social and affective neuroscience more generally. This includes brain regions involved in affective and evaluative processing, such as the amygdala, insula, anterior cingulate, and orbitofrontal cortex, as well as regions involved in social cognition (e.g., medial prefrontal cortex), decision making (e.g., dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), and reward processing (e.g., ventral striatum). Existing research in political neuroscience has largely focused on understanding candidate evaluation, political participation, and ideological differences. Early work in the field focused simply on examining neural responses to political stimuli, whereas more recent work has begun to examine more nuanced hypotheses about how the brain engages in political cognition and decision making. While the field is still relatively new, this work has begun to improve our understanding of how people engage in motivated reasoning about political candidates and elected officials and the extent to which these processes may be automatic versus relatively more controlled. Other work has focused on understanding how brain differences are related to differences in political opinion, showing both structural and functional variation between political liberals and political conservatives. Neuroscientific methods are best used as part of a larger, multimethod research program to help inform theoretical questions about mechanisms underlying political cognition. This work can then be triangulated with experimental laboratory studies, psychophysiology, and traditional survey approaches and help to constrain and ensure that theory in political psychology and political behavior is biologically plausible given what we know about underlying neural architecture. This field will continue to grow, as interest and expertise expand and new technologies become available.

show abstract

Section: Political Ideologysupporting

confidence: 76%

Political neuroscience: Understanding how the brain makes political decisions

Haas¹,

Warren²,

Lauf³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some ongoing work, we find that both liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans) respond to political threat by increasing endorsement of politically-relevant conspiracy theories . But, in other work I do find differences in how liberals and conservatives respond to threat and uncertainty when the outcome of interest is support for political compromise (Haas, 2016). While liberals and conservatives in general tend to be equally supportive (or not) of compromise, I found in this work that conservatives were more likely than liberals to decrease support for compromise in response to uncertain threats.…”

Section: The Role Of Political Contextcontrasting

confidence: 44%

“…And, in the conspiracy work, we do find that the effect of threat on conspiracy endorsement changes over time as a function of who currently holds political power-threat is more likely to motivate conspiracy endorsement for individuals who are lacking political power (i.e., Democrats after the election of President Donald Trump in 2016; . It is worth noting that compromise work mentioned above (Haas, 2016) was conducted while Barack Obama was President, so I think it remains an open question whether conservatives would always show this effect relative to liberals, or if these effects would be further moderated by political context (i.e., IDEOLOGICAL EPISTEMOLOGY 7 political party in control of the presidency). Taken together, this work suggests we need to do more than just look at how liberals and conservatives respond to emotional stimuli, but how those responses lead to (or not) related changes in their political behavior.…”

Section: The Role Of Political Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological Asymmetries in Social Psychological Research: Rethinking the Impact of Political Context on Ideological Epistemology

Haas

2020

Psychological Inquiry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Within the 31 papers, two papers contained regression results that also included the standard errors (SEs) of the estimated regression coefficients: Teng, Poon, and Yang (2016) and Haas (2016). Using this information, we were able to calculate approximate 95% percent confidence intervals and thus assess some inferential aspects of the reported results.…”

Section: Assessing Some Reported Regression Coefficientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p -Value Ban

Fricker

Burke

Han

et al. 2019

The American Statistician

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we assess the 31 articles published in Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP) in 2016, which is one full year after the BASP editors banned the use of inferential statistics. We discuss how the authors collected their data, how they reported and summarized their data, and how they used their data to reach conclusions. We found multiple instances of authors overstating conclusions beyond what the data would support if statistical significance had been considered. Readers would be largely unable to recognize this because the necessary information to do so was not readily available.

show abstract

The Impact of Uncertainty, Threat, and Political Identity on Support for Political Compromise

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

Political neuroscience: Understanding how the brain makes political decisions

Political neuroscience: Understanding how the brain makes political decisions

Ideological Asymmetries in Social Psychological Research: Rethinking the Impact of Political Context on Ideological Epistemology

Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p -Value Ban

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About