The agency–beliefs–communion (ABC) model and worldview conflict research show that people rate groups as more moral and likable if they rate their ideology as more similar to the ideology of the self. This paper refers to this effect as ideological prejudice. There is a debate whether ideology moderates the effect size of ideological prejudice. Through three observational studies (NS1 = 700, NS2 = 974, NS3 = 633), this paper contributes to this debate in three ways. First and primarily, the paper shows that ideological prejudice is stronger in conservatives and progressives compared to people with more moderate ideological beliefs. Second, stronger ideological prejudice in ideological extremists (vs. moderates) holds when controlling for stronger ingroup favoritism in ideological extremists (vs. moderates). And third, the paper suggests that higher importance of own ideology in ideological extremists (vs. moderates) may explain why ideological prejudice is stronger in ideological extremists (vs. moderates). These findings develop a part of the ABC model of stereotypes, contribute to worldview conflict research, and help to explain why ideological polarization is divisive.
AbeleA. E.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.KochA.YzerbytV. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262
2.
BadaanV.JostJ. T. (2020). Conceptual, empirical, and practical problems with the claim that intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination are equivalent on the political left and right. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.007
3.
BaronJ.JostJ. T. (2019). False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618788876
4.
BélangerJ. J.SchumpeB. M.NisaC. F.MoyanoM. (2020). When countermessaging backfires: The role of obsessive passion in psychological reactance. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000206
5.
BélangerJ. J.SchumpeB. M.NocitiN.MoyanoM.DandeneauS.ChamberlandP. E.VallerandR. J. (2019). Passion and moral disengagement: Different pathways to political activism. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1234–1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12470
6.
Ben-NerA.McCallB. P.StephaneM.WangH. (2009). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.007
7.
BerghR.BrandtM. J. (2021). Mapping principal dimensions of prejudice in the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 123(1), 154�173. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000360
8.
BöhmR.RuschH.BaronJ. (2018). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of theories and measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 947–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020
BrandtM. J.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG.ReynaC. (2015). Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000055
11.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 1–66). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002
12.
BrandtM. J.SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (2019). What is central to political belief system networks?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(9), 1352–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218824354
13.
BrandtM. J.van TongerenD. R. (2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076
14.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
15.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612447820
16.
CrawfordJ. T. (2014). Ideological symmetries and asymmetries in political intolerance and prejudice toward political activist groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.08.002
17.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J. (2019). Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? The Big Five traits and generalized prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(10), 1455–1467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219832335
18.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J.InbarY.ChambersJ. R.MotylM. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 383–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000074
CzarnekG.SzwedP.KossowskaM. (2019). Right- and left-wing prejudice toward dissimilar groups in cultural and economic domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2548
21.
EatonA. A.VisserP. S. (2008). Attitude importance: Understanding the causes and consequences of passionately held views. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1719–1736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00125.x
22.
EllemersN.FiskeS. T.AbeleA. E.KochA.YzerbytV. (2020). Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 117(14), 7561–7567. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906720117
23.
FernbachP. M.RogersT.FoxC. R.SlomanS. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24(6), 939–946. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612464058
24.
FiedlerK.HarrisC.SchottM. (2018). Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests – An analysis of articles published in 2015. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.008
25.
FiedlerK.SchottM.MeiserT. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007
26.
FiedlerS.HellmannD. M.DorroughA. R.GlöcknerA. (2018). Cross-national in-group favoritism in prosocial behavior: Evidence from Latin and North America. Judgment & Decision Making, 13(1), 42–60. https://journal.sjdm.org/17/17818a/jdm17818a.html
27.
FrimerJ. A.BrandtM. J.MeltonZ.MotylM. (2019). Extremists on the left and right use angry, negative language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1216–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218809705
28.
GanzachY.SchulY. (2021). Partisan ideological attitudes: Liberals are tolerant; the intelligent are intolerant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1551–1566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000324
29.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
ImhoffR.KochA.FladeF. (2018). (Pre)occupations: A data-driven model of jobs and its consequences for categorization and evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.001
32.
JenkinsA. C.KarashchukP.ZhuL.HsuM. (2018). Predicting human behavior toward members of different social groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 115(39), 9696–9701. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719452115
33.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
34.
JostJ. T.KruglanskiA. W.GlaserJ.SullowayF. J.KruglanskiA. W. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
35.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
36.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
37.
KochA.DorroughA.GlöcknerA.ImhoffR. (2020). The ABC of society: Perceived similarity in agency/socioeconomic success and conservative–progressive beliefs increases intergroup cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, Article 103996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103996
38.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 675–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046
39.
KochA.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.NicolasG.FiskeS.TeracheJ.CarrierA.YzerbytV. (2020). Groups’ warmth is a personal matter: Understanding consensus on stereotype dimensions reconciles adversarial models of social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, Article 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103995
40.
KochA.KervynN.KervynM.ImhoffR. (2018). Studying the cognitive map of the U.S. states: Ideology and prosperity stereotypes predict interstate prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715070
41.
KochA.YzerbytV.AbeleA.EllemersN.FiskeS. T. (2021). Social evaluation: Comparing models across interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, several-group, and many-group contexts. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 63, pp. 1–68). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.11.001
42.
KrosnickJ. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.196
43.
LammersJ.KochA.ConwayP.BrandtM. J. (2017). The political domain appears simpler to the politically extreme than to political moderates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678456
44.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
45.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
46.
LiuJ. H.LatanéB. (1998). The catastrophic link between the importance and extremity of political attitudes. Political Behavior, 20(2), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024828729174
47.
MalhotraN.TahkA. (2011). Specification issues in assessing the moderating role of issue importance: A comment on Grynaviski and Corrigan (2006). Political Analysis, 19, 342–350. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23011442
48.
MasonL. (2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(Suppl 1), 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz005
49.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2016). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
50.
MotylM.IyerR.OishiS.TrawalterS.NosekB. A. (2014). How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.010
51.
NicolasG.FiskeS. T.KochA.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.TeracheJ.CarrierA.YzerbytV. (2021). Relational versus structural goals prioritize different social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 122(4), 659�682. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000366
52.
RollwageM.DolanR. J.FlemingS. M. (2018). Metacognitive failure as a feature of those holding radical beliefs. Current Biology, 28(24), 4014–4021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053
53.
RuischB. C.SternC. (2021). The confident conservative: Ideological differences in judgment and decision-making confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(3), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000898
54.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC.RamosA.VerkasaloM.LönnqvistJ.-E.DemirutkuK.Dirilen-GumusO.KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
55.
ShookN. J.FazioR. H. (2009). Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli, and attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 995–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.003
56.
SimonsohnU. (2018). Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755
57.
SternC.CrawfordJ. T. (2021). Ideological conflict and prejudice: An adversarial collaboration examining correlates and ideological (a)symmetries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620904275
58.
TonerK.LearyM. R.AsherM. W.Jongman-SerenoK. P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2454–2462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613494848
59.
Van HielA. V.MervieldeI. (2004). Openness to experience and boundaries in the mind: Relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of Personality, 72(4), 659–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00276.x
60.
Van ProoijenJ. W.KrouwelA. P. (2017). Extreme political beliefs predict dogmatic intolerance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671403
61.
Van ProoijenJ. W.KrouwelA. P.BoitenM.EendebakL. (2015). Fear among the extremists: How political ideology predicts negative emotions and outgroup derogation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569706
62.
VoelkelJ. G.BrandtM. J.ColomboM. (2018). I know that I know nothing: Can puncturing the illusion of explanatory depth overcome the relationship between attitudinal dissimilarity and prejudice?Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2018.1464881
63.
WeingartenE.HutchinsonJ. (2018). Does ease mediate the ease-of-retrieval effect? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(3), 227–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000122
64.
WetherellG. A.BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613476096
65.
YzerbytV.MullerD.BataillerC.JuddC. M. (2018). New recommendations for testing indirect effects in mediational models: The need to report and test component paths. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 929–943. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000132
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.
