In 4 studies (N = 886), we investigate the effect of intergroup interconnectedness on political ideology and examine whether this is mediated through empathy. In Study 1, ingroup interconnectedness predicted approval and outgroup interconnectedness disapproval of the Trump administration’s executive order on immigration, and empathy toward immigrants differentially mediated these relationships. In Study 2, ingroup interconnectedness negatively predicted and outgroup interconnectedness positively predicted liberalism, whereas the opposite relationships were found for conservatism. Moreover, outgroup interconnectedness positively predicted liberalism through greater empathy, but negatively predicted conservatism through less empathy. Manipulating outgroup interconnectedness (against a control) increased outgroup empathy and liberalism, decreased conservatism (Study 3a), and increased support for a liberal welfare policy (Study 3b), but these effects on ideology only occurred indirectly through greater outgroup empathy. Overall, results suggest ingroup and outgroup interconnectedness differentially predict and promote political ideology through empathy.
ArbuckleJ. L. (2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation.
2.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
3.
AronA.AronE. N.TudorM.NelsonG. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
5.
BatsonC. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
BatsonC. D.ShawL. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1
7.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34. doi:10.1177/0963721413510932
8.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126
9.
BrewerM. B.GardnerW. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
10.
CapraraG. V.SchwartzS.CapannaC.VecchioneM.BarbaranelliC. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x
11.
ChomaB. L.HaferC. L.DywanJ.SegalowitzS. J.BusseriM. A. (2012). Political liberalism and political conservatism: Functionally independent?Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 431–436. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.012
12.
CialdiniR. B.BrownS. L.LewisB. P.LuceC.NeubergS. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.481
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
15.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
Dys-SteenbergenO.WrightS. C.AronA. (2016). Self-expansion motivation improves cross-group interactions and enhances self-growth. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 60–71. doi:10.1177/1368430215583517
17.
Eisenberg-BergN.MussenP. (1980). Personality correlates of sociopolitical liberalism and conservatism in adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 137, 165–177. doi:10.1080/00221325.1980.10532816
18.
FeldmanS. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In SearsD. O.HuddyL.JervisR. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
FettermanA. K.BoydR. L.RobinsonM. D. (2015). Power versus affiliation in political ideology: Robust linguistic evidence for distinct motivation-related signatures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1195–1206. doi:10.1177/0146167215591960
20.
FiedlerK.SchottM.MeiserT. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1231–1236. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007
21.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2012). The common ingroup identity model. In In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 439–457). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
GrahamJ. (2013). Mapping the moral maps: From alternate taxonomies to competing predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 237–241. doi:10.1177/1088868313492020
23.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
24.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
25.
HassonY.TamirM.BrahmsK. S.CohrsJ. C.HalperinE. (2018). Are liberals and conservatives equally motivated to feel empathy toward others?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1449–1459. doi:10.1177/0146167218769867
26.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
HirshJ. B.DeYoungC. G.XuX.PetersonJ. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 655–664. doi:10.1177/0146167210366854
28.
HornsteinH. A. (1982). Promotive tension: Theory and research. In DerlegaV. J.GrzelakJ. (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 229–248). New York, NY: Academic Press.
29.
IyerR.KolevaS.GrahamJ.DittoP.HaidtJ. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE, 7, e42366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
30.
Janoff-BulmanR. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 120–128. doi:10.1080/10478400903028581
31.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2013a). Moral context matters: A reply to Graham. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 242–247. doi:10.1177/1088868313492021
32.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2013b). Surveying the moral landscape: Moral motives and intergroup moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 219–236. doi:10.1177/1088868313480274
33.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2016). Social justice and social order: Binding moralities across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 11, e0152479. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152479
34.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.BaldacciK. G. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091–1099. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.003
35.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208. doi:10.1111/pops.12407
36.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
37.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
38.
JostJ. T.LedgerwoodA.HardinC. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x
39.
KerlingerF. N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
LakoffG. (2002). Moral politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
McAdamsD. P.AlbaughM.FarberE.DanielsJ.LoganR. L.OlsonB. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 978–990. doi:10.1037/a0012650
42.
McFarlandS.WebbM.BrownD. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 830–853. doi:10.1037/a0028724
43.
PliskinR.Bar-TalD.SheppesG.HalperinE. (2014). Are leftists more emotion-driven than rightists? The interactive influence of ideology and emotions on support for policies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1681–1697. doi:10.1177/0146167214554589
44.
PliskinR.HalperinE.Bar-TalD.SheppesG. (2018). When ideology meets conflict- related content: Influences on emotion generation and regulation. Emotion, 18, 159–170. doi:10.1037/emo0000317
45.
PoratR.HalperinE.TamirM. (2016). What we want is what we get: Group-based emotional preferences and conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 167–190. doi:10.1037/pspa0000043
46.
RoccasS.BrewerM. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
47.
RockM.Janoff-BulmanR. (2010). Where do we draw our lines? Politics, rigidity, and the role of self-regulation. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 1, 26–33. doi:10.1177/1948550609347386
48.
RosenmannA.ReeseG.CameronJ. E. (2016). Social identities in a globalized world: Challenges and opportunities for collective action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 202–221. doi:10.1177/1745691615621272
49.
SchwartzS. H.CapraraG. V.VecchioneM. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31, 421–452. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00764.x
50.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51.
SparkmanD. J.EidelmanS. (2016). “Putting myself in their shoes”: Ethnic perspective taking explains liberal–conservative differences in prejudice and stereotyping. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.095
52.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
53.
StelM. A.HarinckF. (2011). Being mimicked makes you a prosocial voter. Experimental Psychology, 58, 79–84. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000070
54.
SternC.WestT. V. (2016). Ideological differences in anchoring and adjustment during social inferences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1466–1479. doi:10.1177/0146167216664058
55.
SternC.WestT. V.SchmittP. G. (2014). The liberal illusion of uniqueness. Psychological Science, 25, 137–144. doi:10.1177/0956797613500796
56.
StotlandE. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271–313). New York, NY: Academic Press.
57.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
58.
TalhelmT.HaidtJ.OishiS.ZhangX.MiaoF. F.ChenS. (2015). Liberals think more analytically (more “WEIRD”) than conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 250–267. doi:10.1177/0146167214563672
59.
ThoemmesF. (2015). Reversing arrows in mediation models does not distinguish plausible models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 226–234. doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1049351
60.
ToddA. R.BodenhausenG. V.GalinskyA. D. (2012). Perspective taking combats the denial of intergroup discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 738–745. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.011
61.
Van der ToornJ.NapierJ. L.DovidioJ. F. (2014). We the people: Intergroup interdependence breeds liberalism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 616–622. doi:10.1177/1948550613512511
62.
WatkinsM. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis [Computer software]. State College, PA: Ed & Psych Associates.
63.
WatkinsM. W. (2005). Determining parallel analysis criteria. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 5, 344–346. doi:10.22237/jmasm/1162354020
64.
WaytzA.IyerR.YoungL.GrahamJ. (2016). Ideological differences in the expanse of empathy. In ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Social psychology of political polarization (pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
65.
WegnerD. M. (1980). The self in prosocial action. In WegnerD. M.VallacherR. R. (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 131–157). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
66.
WrightS. C.AronA.TroppL. R. (2002). Including others (and groups) in the self. In ForgasJ. P.WilliamsK. D. (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives (pp. 343–364). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
67.
XuX.MarR. A.PetersonJ. B. (2013). Does cultural exposure partially explain the association between personality and political orientation?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1497–1517. doi:10.1177/0146167213499235
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.
