TY - JOUR
T1 - Asymmetries abound
T2 - Ideological differences in emotion, partisanship, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust
AU - Jost, John T.
N1 - Funding Information:
The writing of this article was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (Award # BCS-1627691 ). I thank György Hunyady and Sharon Shavitt for helpful advice in preparing this response and several of my collaborators—Ruthie Pliskin, Eran Halperin, Pablo Barberá, Davide Morisi, and Vishal Singh—for their invaluable contributions to the research I have summarized.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Society for Consumer Psychology
PY - 2017/10
Y1 - 2017/10
N2 - This article is a response to Rao (2017), Krishna and Sokolova (2017), and Oyserman and Schwarz (2017), all of whom provided extremely thoughtful commentaries on a target article in which I summarized several lines of research in political psychology on liberal-conservative differences in personality, cognition, motivation, values, and neurological structures and functions (Jost, 2017a). I begin by correcting a possible misconception, namely that the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition cannot explain dynamic shifts in ideological affinities; on the contrary, we have demonstrated that “top-down” situational—as well as “bottom-up” dispositional—processes work in conjunction to produce ideological outcomes, and this is why tailored forms of political persuasion can be highly effective in producing change. Next I describe additional evidence (including previously unpublished evidence) bearing on ideological symmetries and asymmetries with respect to emotion, partisanship, social identification, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust. I end by asking consumer psychologists for their continued collaboration in addressing profound challenges associated with understanding and reconciling sources of ideological divergence—not only for the sake of research in behavioral science but also for the smooth functioning of democratic society.
AB - This article is a response to Rao (2017), Krishna and Sokolova (2017), and Oyserman and Schwarz (2017), all of whom provided extremely thoughtful commentaries on a target article in which I summarized several lines of research in political psychology on liberal-conservative differences in personality, cognition, motivation, values, and neurological structures and functions (Jost, 2017a). I begin by correcting a possible misconception, namely that the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition cannot explain dynamic shifts in ideological affinities; on the contrary, we have demonstrated that “top-down” situational—as well as “bottom-up” dispositional—processes work in conjunction to produce ideological outcomes, and this is why tailored forms of political persuasion can be highly effective in producing change. Next I describe additional evidence (including previously unpublished evidence) bearing on ideological symmetries and asymmetries with respect to emotion, partisanship, social identification, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust. I end by asking consumer psychologists for their continued collaboration in addressing profound challenges associated with understanding and reconciling sources of ideological divergence—not only for the sake of research in behavioral science but also for the smooth functioning of democratic society.
KW - Conservatism
KW - Ideology
KW - Liberalism
KW - Motivation
KW - Political psychology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029701907&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029701907&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcps.2017.08.004
DO - 10.1016/j.jcps.2017.08.004
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85029701907
SN - 1057-7408
VL - 27
SP - 546
EP - 553
JO - Journal of Consumer Psychology
JF - Journal of Consumer Psychology
IS - 4
ER -