G. Scott Morgan

Confrontational and Preventative Policy Responses to Terrorism: Anger Wants a Fight and Fear Wants "Them" to Go Away

This study used a nationally representative sample (N = 550) to test factors that predicted support for a confrontational (an expanded War on Terror) and a defensive public policy (deporting various groups symbolically associated with the attackers) shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Results indicate that anger but not fear predicted support for expanding the war beyond Afghanistan, and fear but not anger predicted support for deporting Arab Americans, Muslims, and first generation immigrants. Political orientation was weakly or not correlated with affective reactions and policy preferences, but right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) was a strong predictor of both. RWA had a direct and an indirect effect through anger on support for war and a direct and an indirect effect through fear on support for deportation. Implications are discussed.

When Values and Attributions Collide: Liberals' and Conservatives' Values Motivate Attributions for Alleged Misdeeds

Conservatives tend to make dispositional whereas liberals make situational attributions for social problems and alleged misconduct (the “ideo-attribution effect”). Three studies demonstrated a reversal of the ideo-attribution effect. Conservatives made stronger situational attributions than liberals for the behavior of Marines accused of killing Iraqi civilians (Studies 1 and 2) and police officers accused of wrongly killing a cougar running loose in a Chicago neighborhood (Study 3). Reversals of the ideo-attribution effect occurred because conservative values were more consistent with excusing the Marines’ and police officers’ behavior, whereas liberal values were more consistent with blaming the Marines and police officers. These results suggest that the ideo-attribution effect—and attributions more generally—are shaped by whether people’s attributional conclusions are consistent or inconsistent with their salient values.

Status quo framing increases support for torture

Does describing torture by Americas agents as a longstanding practice—part of the status quo—increase peoples acceptance of the practice? A representative sample of U.S. adults, randomly assigned to conditions in which these practices were described as new or as having been used for more than 40 years, read about the use of torture in questioning of detainees. Torture described as a longstanding practice had more support and was seen as more effective and justifiable than the same torture described as new. Characterization of practices as longstanding—even if unpopular or disgraceful—enhances their support and increases their perceived justification.

Personality, Identity, and Character: The Double-Edged Sword of a Moral State of Mind

History is replete with atrocities that were justifi ed by invoking the highest principles and that were perpetrated upon victims who were equally convinced of their own moral principles. In the name of justice, of the common welfare, of universal ethics, and of God, millions of people have been killed and whole cultures destroyed. In recent history, concepts of universal rights, equality, freedom, and social equity have been used to justify every variety of murder including genocide. (Mischel & Mischel, 1976 , p. 107)

A checklist to facilitate objective hypothesis testing in social psychology research.

Social psychology is not a very politically diverse area of inquiry, something that could negatively affect the objectivity of social psychological theory and research, as Duarte et al. argue in the target article. This commentary offers a number of checks to help researchers uncover possible biases and identify when they are engaging in hypothesis confirmation and advocacy instead of hypothesis testing.

Political ideology is contextually variable and flexible rather than fixed

Hibbing et al. argue that the liberal-conservative continuum is (a) universal and (b) grounded in psychological differences in sensitivity to negative stimuli. Our commentary argues that both claims overlook the importance of context. We review evidence that the liberal-conservative continuum is far from universal and that ideological differences are contextually flexible rather than fixed.

Dark Clouds and Silver Linings: Social Responses to 9/11

There is clear evidence that the September 11,2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon had both immediate and long-term effects on the American psyche.1 Some of the psychological consequences of the attacks were transparently hostile, negative, and defensive. An unfortunate consequence of terrorist attacks against Western liberal democracies is that people often react to these attacks by becoming more willing to sacrifice necessary cornerstones of freedom, that is, by becoming willing to restrict both their own and others’ civil liberties, and often worse.