24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T505,

The current research explores how respondents’ ideology influences their perception of political parties’ stances on various issues. Additionally, we examine how three distinct indicators of ideological strength—congruence between ideology and party affiliation, level of education, and engagement in political activities—affect these perceptions. Our empirical analyses rely on data from the 1968–2012 Cumulative American National Election Study dataset, which captures respondents’ views on the stances of US political parties regarding ten key issues. We find that, after controlling for respondents’ own issue positions, (i) perceptions of the positions held by the opponent party are strongly influenced by respondents’ ideologies, and (ii) this influence is more pronounced among individuals with stronger ideological convictions, as indicated by the three aforementioned indicators. Conversely, when examining perceptions of one’s favored party, ideology demonstrates a weak and inconsistent effect across the three markers of ideological strength. We discuss theoretical frameworks that may elucidate these findings, their implications for understanding political polarization, and we acknowledge limitations related to the dataset’s characteristics.

26:T451,

Across two experimental studies, we explored whether exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories can increase violent reactions towards targeted groups. We also examined how ideological attitudes may moderate the effect. In Study 1 (N = 160, preregistered), we found that exposure to immigrant conspiracy theories (vs. control) increased the willingness to use violence for those who reported higher social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Study 2 (N = 211, preregistered) sought to extend these results by focusing on a specific target: Muslim immigrants. Exposure to Muslim immigrant conspiracy theories (vs. control) increased motivation and willingness to use violence for those with higher SDO (but not RWA). These findings showcase how exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories and violent reactions are conditional on specific ideological attitudes. Thus, when considering interventions, we argue that it is crucial to consider the role of ideological worldviews when seeking to combat conspiracy-inspired violence.

27:T457,

Three studies (N = 1,427) examine White Americans’ threat and stress appraisals and coping strategies in imagined inter- and intraracial interactions when a nearby White person does something racist. White individuals report heightened concern about being stereotyped as racist (i.e., metastereotyping