In an adversarial collaboration, we examined associations among factors that could link ideological conflict—perceiving that members of a group do not share one’s ideology—to prejudice and affiliation interest. We also examined whether these factors would possess similar (“symmetrical”) or different (“asymmetrical”) associative strength among liberals and conservatives. Across three samples (666 undergraduate students, 347 Mechanical Turk workers), ideological conflict was associated with perceived dissimilarity on political and nonpolitical topics, as well as negative emotions. Perceived political and nonpolitical dissimilarity were also associated with negative emotions, prejudice, and lower affiliative intentions among both liberals and conservatives. Importantly, however, perceived political dissimilarity was associated with negative emotions, prejudice, and lower affiliative intentions more strongly among liberals. Some inconsistent evidence also suggested that perceived nonpolitical dissimilarity was associated with prejudice and lower affiliative intentions more strongly among conservatives. These findings document nuance in relationships that could link ideological conflict to prejudice.
AikenL.WestS. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
3.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26, 1531–1542.
4.
BaronJ.JostJ. T. (2019). False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 292–303.
5.
BishopB. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
6.
BoutylineA.WillerR. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38, 551–569.
7.
BrandtM. J. (2017). Predicting ideological prejudice. Psychological Science, 28, 713–722.
8.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2019). Studying a heterogeneous array of target groups can help us understand prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 292–298.
9.
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.
10.
BrandtM. J.SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (2019). What is central to political belief system networks?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 1352–1364.
11.
BrewerM. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political psychology, 22, 115–125.
12.
ByrneD. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713.
13.
CarterT. J.FergusonM. J.HassinR. R. (2011). A single exposure to the American flag shifts support toward Republicanism up to 8 months later. Psychological Science, 22, 1011–1018.
14.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24, 140–149.
CondonJ. W.CranoW. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789.
17.
CorrellJ.JuddC. M.ParkB.WittenbrinkB. (2010). Measuring prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 45–62). Sage.
18.
CrawfordJ. T. (2014). Ideological symmetries and asymmetries in political intolerance and prejudice toward political activist groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 284–298.
19.
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, 383.
20.
CrawfordJ. T.PilanskiJ. M. (2014). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology, 35, 841–851.
21.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81.
22.
DittoP. H.LiuB. S.ClarkC. J.WojcikS. P.ChenE. E.GradyR. H.CelnikerJ. B.ZingerJ. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273–291.
FedericoC. M.DeasonG.FisherE. L. (2012). Ideological asymmetry in the relationship between epistemic motivation and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 381.
25.
FedericoC. M.EkstromP. D. (2018). The political self: How identity aligns preferences with epistemic needs. Psychological Science, 29, 901–913.
26.
FeldmanS. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24, 41–74.
27.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7, 117–140.
28.
FestingerL.SchachterS.BackK. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford University Press
29.
FitzmauriceG. M.LairdN. M.WareJ. H. (2012). Applied longitudinal analysis (Vol. 998). John Wiley.
30.
FrimerJ. A.SkitkaL. J.MotylM. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12.
31.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029.
32.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
33.
HetheringtonM. J.RudolphT. J. (2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. University of Chicago Press.
34.
HigginsE. T. (2019). Shared reality: What makes us strong and tears us apart. Oxford University Press.
35.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.
36.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339.
37.
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.
38.
JostJ. T.SterlingJ.SternC. (2018). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In KopetzC.FishbachA. (Eds.), The motivation-cognition interface, from the lab to the real world: A festschrift in honor of Arie W. Kruglanski (Vol. I, pp. 56–87). Routledge.
39.
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.
40.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press.
41.
KennyD. A.WestT. V. (2008). Self-perception as interpersonal perception. In WoodJ. V.TesserA.HolmesJ. G. (Eds.), The self and social relationships (pp. 119–137). Psychology Press.
42.
KleinR. A.VianelloM.HasselmanF.AdamsB. G.AdamsR. B.JrAlperS.VegaD.AveyardM.BabaloiaJ. A. M.BahníkŠ.BerkicsM.BernsteinM. J.BerryD. R.BialobrzeskaO.BocianK.BrandtM.BuschingR.CaiH.CambierF…NosekB. A. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 443–490.
43.
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, 675.
44.
KruegerJ.ClementR. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596.
45.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.De GradaE. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84.
46.
LedgerwoodA.EastwickP. W.SmithL. K. (2018). Toward an integrative framework for studying human evaluation: Attitudes toward objects and attributes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 378–398.
47.
LyonsJ. (2017). The family and partisan socialization in Red and Blue America. Political Psychology, 38, 297–312.
48.
MallettR. K.WilsonT. D.GilbertD. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 265.
49.
MallinasS. R.CrawfordJ. T.ColeS. (2018). Political opposites do not attract: The effects of ideological dissimilarity on impression formation. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 6, 49–75.
50.
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.
51.
MotylM.IyerR.OishiS.TrawalterS.NosekB. A. (2014). How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 1–14.
PearsonA. R.WestT. V.DovidioJ. F.PowersS. R.BuckR.HenningR. (2008). The fragility of intergroup relations: Divergent effects of delayed audiovisual feedback in intergroup and intragroup interaction. Psychological Science, 19, 1272–1279.
54.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.
RinckM.RörtgenT.LangeW. G.DotschR.WigboldusD. H.BeckerE. S. (2010). Social anxiety predicts avoidance behaviour in virtual encounters. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 1269–1276.
58.
RossL.GreeneD.HouseP. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of experimental social psychology, 13, 279–301.
59.
SeptiantoF.NortheyG.DolanR. (2019). The effects of political ideology and message framing on counterfeiting: The mediating role of emotions. Journal of Business Research, 99, 206–214.
60.
StathiS.TsantilaK.CrispR. J. (2012). Imagining intergroup contact can combat mental health stigma by reducing anxiety, avoidance and negative stereotyping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 746–757.
61.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175.
62.
SternC.OndishP. (2018). Political aspects of shared reality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 11–14.
63.
WashburnA. (2018). Values and epistemic motivation: Testing ideological differences and similarities in need for closure[Doctoral dissertation].
64.
WashburnA. N.SkitkaL. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 972–980.
65.
WestT. V.MageeJ. C.GordonS. H.GullettL. (2014). A little similarity goes a long way: The effects of peripheral but self-revealing similarities on improving and sustaining interracial relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 81.
66.
WestT. V.SheltonJ. N.TrailT. E. (2009). Relational anxiety in interracial interactions. Psychological Science, 20, 289–292.
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.
