Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The extant literature demonstrates that exposure to threat almost always increases support for political conservatism. But can threat increase the support for political liberalism? The current article provides evidence that threat can increase the aspects of political liberalism. Across three experiments, we find that experimentally manipulated threats to health-care access (Experiment 1, N = 558), pollution (Experiment 2, N = 184), and corporate misconduct (Experiment 3, N = 225) produced increased support for components of liberalism. These findings fill a notable gap in the literature, broadening larger theoretical discussions of threat as a psychological construct and current understandings of experimentally manipulated attitudinal change.

Keywords

threat emotion attitudes political ideology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carver

C. S.

Harmon-Jones

(2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–204.

Cottrell

C. A.

Neuberg

S. L.

(2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770

Eadeh

R. F.

(2017). Healthcare vs. Hawkishness: The divergent effects of affect on context-driven shifts in attitudes. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/1098/

Egan

(2013). Partisan Priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts American Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson

(1977). “The theory of affordances.” In Shaw

Bransford

(Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Giner-Sorolla

Kupfer

Sabo

(2018). What makes moral disgust special? An integrative functional review. In Advances in Experiemental Social Psychology (Vol. 57, pp. 223–289). Academic Press.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85, 4–40.

Huddy

Feldman

Cassese

(2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In Neuman

W. R.

Marcus

G. E.

Mackuen

Crigler

(Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior, 202–230.

Hutcherson

C. A.

Gross

J. J.

(2011). The moral emotions: A social–functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 719–737.

10.

Jost

J. T.

Glaser

Kruglanski

A. W.

Sulloway

(2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.

11.

Jost

J. T.

Stern

Rule

Sterling

(2017). The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation? Social Cognition, 35, 324–353.

12.

Lambert

A. J.

Eadeh

F. R.

Peak

S. A.

Scherer

L. D.

Schott

J. P.

Slochower

J. M.

(2014). Toward a greater understanding of the emotional dynamics of the mortality salience manipulation: Revisiting the “affect-free” claim of terror management research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 655–678.

13.

Lambert

A. J.

Eadeh

F. R.

Hanson

E. J.

(in press). Anger and its consequences for judgment and behavior: Recent developments in social and political psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

14.

Lambert

A. J.

Scherer

L. D.

Schott

J. P.

Olson

K. R.

Andrews

R. K.

O’Brien

T. C.

Zisser

A. R.

(2010). Rally effects, threat, and attitude change: An integrative approach to understanding the role of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 886–903.

15.

Litvak

Lerner

J. S.

Tiedens

L. Z.

Shonk

(2010). Fuel in the fire: How anger impacts judgment and decision making. In Potegal

Stemmler

Spielberger

(Eds.), International Handbook of Anger (pp. 287–311). New York, NY: Springer.

16.

Nabi

R. L.

(2002). The theoretical versus the lay meaning of disgust: Implications for emotion research. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 695–703.

17.

Newport

. (2014, September 11). Republicans expand edge as better party against terrorism. Gallup website. Retrieved from news.gallup.com/poll/175727/republicans-expand-edge-better-party-against-terrorism.aspx

18.

Petrocik

J. R.

(1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.

19.

Saad

(2007). Democratic party winning on issues, December 7. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/103102/democratic-party-winning-issues.aspx

20.

Seeberg

(2017). How stable is political parties’ issue ownership? A cross-time, cross-national analysis. Political Studies, 65, 475–492.

21.

Threat. Def 2. (2018). In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/threat

22.

Washington Post-ABC. (2002, December 18). Washington Post-ABC news poll. Washington Post website. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data121802.html

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

1.37 MB

Can Threat Increase Support for Liberalism? New Insights Into the Relationship Between Threat and Political Attitudes

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material