Geoffrey Wetherell

The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives

Decades of research in social and political psychology have demonstrated that political conservatives appear more intolerant toward a variety of groups than do political liberals. Recent work from our three independent labs has challenged this conventional wisdom by suggesting that some of the psychological underpinnings of intolerance are not exclusive to people on either end of the political spectrum. These studies have demonstrated that liberals and conservatives express similar levels of intolerance toward ideologically dissimilar and threatening groups. We suggest directions for future research and discuss the psychological and political implications of our conclusions.

Discrimination across the ideological divide : The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives

Despite ample research linking conservatism to discrimination and liberalism to tolerance, both groups may discriminate. In two studies, we investigated whether conservatives and liberals support discrimination against value violators, and whether liberals’ and conservatives’ values distinctly affect discrimination. Results demonstrated that liberals and conservatives supported discrimination against ideologically dissimilar groups, an effect mediated by perceptions of value violations. Liberals were more likely than conservatives to espouse egalitarianism and universalism, which attenuated their discrimination; whereas the conservatives’ value of traditionalism predicted more discrimination, and their value of self-reliance predicted less discrimination. This suggests liberals and conservatives are equally likely to discriminate against value violators, but liberal values may ameliorate discrimination more than conservative values.

Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality.

Openness to experience is consistently associated with tolerance. We suggest that tests of the association between openness to experience and tolerance have heretofore been incomplete because they have primarily focused on prejudice toward unconventional target groups. We test (a) the individual difference perspective, which predicts that because people who are high in openness are more open to diverse and dissimilar people and ideas, they will express more tolerance than people who are low in openness and (b) the worldview conflict perspective, which predicts that people high and low in openness will both be intolerant toward those with different worldviews. Four studies, using both conventional and unconventional target groups, find support for an integrative perspective. People high in openness do appear more tolerant of diverse worldviews compared with people low in openness; however, at the same time, people both high and low in openness are more intolerant of groups whose worldviews conflict with their own. These findings highlight the need to consider how individual difference variables and features of the target groups may interact in important ways to influence the expression of prejudice.

What Attitudes are Moral Attitudes? The Case of Attitude Heritability

Variation in the extent an attitude is imbued with moral conviction is a strong predictor of a variety of consequential social judgments; however, the extant literature has not explained variation in moral conviction. The authors predict that some attitudes may be experienced as moral because they are heritable, promoting group survival and firmly rooting people in these attitudes. To test this hypothesis, the authors surveyed two community samples and a student sample (total N = 456) regarding the extent participants perceived 20 attitudes as moral attitudes, and compared these ratings to established estimates of attitude heritability. Across all three studies, attitudes with greater previously established heritability estimates were more likely to be experienced as moral, even when controlling for a variety of measures of attitude strength and the extent to which an attitude is associated with one’s religious beliefs.

The relationship between authoritarianism and life satisfaction changes depending on stigmatized status

Members of stigmatized social groups are typically more authoritarian than their nonstigmatized or higher status counterparts. We draw on research demonstrating that authoritarianism compensates for the negative effects of stigma to predict that this endorsement will be more psychologically beneficial (and less harmful) for the stigmatized compared to their high-status counterparts. Consistent with this idea, data from the 2008 (N = 2,322) and 2012 (N = 5,916) American National Election Study indicate that for members of stigmatized social groups (low income, low education, and ethnic minority), authoritarian child rearing values have more positive psychological effects than for members of high-status groups. These results were robust to covariates, including demographics, religiosity, political ideology, and cognitive style.

Liberals and conservatives can show similarities in negativity bias.

Negativity bias may underlie the development of political ideologies, but liberals and conservatives are likely to respond to threats similarly. We review evidence from research on intolerance, motivated reasoning, and basic psychological threats that suggest liberals and conservatives are more similar than different when confronting threatening groups, situations, and information.

Perceived Value Congruence and Attitudes Toward International Relations and Foreign Policies

Much of the justification for granting foreign aid is to support nations and international policies promoting ones national values. However, little to no research has examined how perceptions of similarity between nations, especially value similarity, drive feelings toward other nations and policy preference. In 3 studies using United States samples, we examine relationships between dimensions of country-level similarity, perceptions of value similarity and threat, and policy support. Correlational data and manipulations of value similarity suggest that perceptions of value similarity are the most consistent predictor of support for foreign aid and are consistently driven by ally status and cultural similarity.

Ostracism drives group moralization and extreme group behavior

ABSTRACT Sharing beliefs, particularly moral beliefs, is a way to establish social connections. We hypothesized that ostracism leads people who are high in the need to belong to adhere to the moral beliefs of an ingroup, and that moralizing the beliefs of one’s group increases the willingness to endorse extreme behavior on behalf of the group. Across two studies, participants were ostracized or included, rated the moral relevance of their group values, and indicated their endorsement of extreme behavior on behalf of the group. Across studies, ostracism increased group moralization in participants high in the need to belong. In Study 2, group moralization translated into endorsement of extreme behavior. Our findings suggest that morality serves a binding function that may be channeled into extreme behaviors. (120 words)

Liberals and Conservatives Show Similarities in Negativity Bias: Evidence from Intolerance, Psychological Threat, and Motivated Reasoning

Negativity bias may underlie the development of political ideologies, but liberals and conservatives are likely to similarly respond to threats. We review evidence from research on intolerance, basic psychological threats, and motivated reasoning that suggests liberals and conservatives are more similar than different when confronting threatening groups, situations, and information.