Republicans Value Agency,Democrats Value Communion

Abstract

Drawing on the theory of the “Big Two” content dimensions of social judgment—agency and communion—the author proposes that several findings about partisan differences in the United States can be integrated into one hypothesis: Republicans tend to put greater value on agency, while Democrats put greater value on communion. Moreover, on the basis of these values, Republicans and Democrats should judge their own groups as particularly superior on agency and communion, respectively. These hypotheses gained support in three studies on partisan values and ingroup bias, suggesting that the agency-communion framework may be useful for researchers studying how political groups differ in their worldviews, biases, and attitudes.

Keywords

dehumanization ingroup bias motivation political values social judgment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abele

Andrea E.

Cuddy

A.J.C.

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

2008. “Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment.” European Journal of Social Psychology 38:1063–65.

Abele

Andrea E.

Wojciszke

2007. “Agency and Communion from the Perspective of Self versus Others.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93:751–53.

Abele

Andrea E.

Wojciszke

2013. “The Big Two in Social Judgment and Behavior.” Social Psychology 44:61–2.

Carrier

Antonin

Louvet

Chauvin

Rohmer

2014. “The Primacy of Agency over Competence in Status Perception.” Social Psychology 45:347–56.

Cohen

Jacob

. 1973. “Eta-squared and Partial Eta-squared in Fixed Factor ANOVA Designs.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 33:107–12.

Crawford

Jarret T.

Modri

Sean A.

Motyl

Matt

. 2013. “Bleeding-heart Liberals and Hard-hearted conservatives: Subtle Political Dehumanization through Differential Attributions of Human Nature and Human Uniqueness Traits.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology 1:86–104.

Eriksson

Kimmo

Funcke

2015. “A Below-average Effect with Respect to American Political Stereotypes on Warmth and Competence.” Political Psychology 36:341–50.

Feldman

Stanley

Steenbergen

M. R.

2001. “The Humanitarian Foundation of Public Support for Social Welfare.” American Journal of Political Science 45:658–77.

Feldman

Stanley

Zaller

1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36:268–307.

10.

Fiske

Susan T.

Cuddy

A.J.C.

Glick

Xu.

2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82:878–902.

11.

Graham

Jesse

Haidt

Nosek

B. A.

2009. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96:1029–46.

12.

Haslam

Nick

. 2006. “Dehumanization: An Integrative Review.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 10:252–64.

13.

Hayes

Danny

. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49:908–23.

14.

Hayes

Danny

. 2011. “When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution.” Politics and Gender 7:133–65.

15.

Huddy

Leonie

Mason

Aarøe

2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109:1–17.

16.

Jost

John T.

Glaser

Kruglanski

A. W.

Sulloway

F. J.

2003. “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin 129:339–75.

17.

Koleva

Sena P.

Graham

Iyer

Ditto

P. H.

Haidt

2012. “Tracing the Threads: How Five Moral Concerns (Especially Purity) Help Explain Culture War Attitudes.” Journal of Research in Personality 46:184–94.

18.

Lakoff

George

. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

19.

Laustsen

Lasse

. 2017. “Choosing the Right Candidate: Observational and Experimental Evidence That Conservatives and Liberals Prefer Powerful and Warm Candidate Personalities, Respectively.” Political Behavior 39:883–908.

20.

Levendusky

Matthew

. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Lodge

Milton

Taber

C. S.

2013. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Loughnan

Steve

Haslam

Kashima

2009. “Understanding the Relationship between Attribute-based and Metaphor-based Dehumanization.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12:747–62.

23.

Pew Research Center. 2016. “Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016.” Retrieved April 5, 2018 (http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/).

24.

Pew Research Center. 2017. “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” Retrieved April 5, 2018 (http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/).

25.

Turner

John C.

1975. “Social Comparison and Social Identity: Some Prospects for Intergroup Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology 5:5–34.

26.

Wojciszke

Bogdan

. 2005. “Morality and Competence in Person- and Self-perception.” European Review of Social Psychology 16:155–88.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB