|
" Differences Between Conservative and Liberal Political Judgments "
Chesnut, Jason Dylan
Kimball, Reginald
| Document Type
|
:
|
Latin Dissertation
|
| Language of Document
|
:
|
English
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1106908
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
TLpq2420559385
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Chesnut, Jason Dylan
|
|
|
:
|
Kimball, Reginald
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Differences Between Conservative and Liberal Political Judgments\ Chesnut, Jason DylanKimball, Reginald
|
| College
|
:
|
Grand Canyon University
|
| Date
|
:
|
2020
|
| student score
|
:
|
2020
|
| Degree
|
:
|
Ph.D.
|
| Page No
|
:
|
296
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
Political ideology influences government policies that impact many areas of life. Ideology also leads to cognitive biases. The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to determine if and to what extent a group's ingroup/outgroup status and advantage/disadvantage status affect political biases toward those groups. The theoretical framework was provided by the dual-process motivational model and the ideologically objectionable premise model (IOPM). Biases were assessed using a scenario describing a law mandating voluntary prayer space in public schools for students belonging to one of four religious groups. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 886 adult college undergraduates via an online survey. Results of one ANOVA showed significant main effects of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), ingroup/outgroup status, and relative inequality of advantage on law approval, F(7, 252) = 12.457, p < .001. Follow-up analyses showed a conservative bias in favor of Christian students over Muslims, t(58) = 2.839, p = .006; a liberal bias in favor of Muslims over Christians, t(56) = -4.913, p < .000; no conservative bias in favor of either Jews or Hindus, t(73) = -1.658, p = .102; and a liberal bias in favor of Hindus over Jews, t(65) = -2.552, p = .013. Results of a second ANOVA using social dominance orientation in place of RWA were non-significant, F(7, 317) = 0.896, p = .345. Results suggest that the IOPM was supported while the predicted effects of group advantage/disadvantage were partially supported. These findings have practical significance as they may help to improve political discourse.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Behavioral psychology
|
|
|
:
|
Cognitive psychology
|
|
|
:
|
Political science
|
| |