A Relational Identity-Based Solution to Group Polarization: Can Priming Parental Identity Reduce the Partisan Gap in Attitudes Toward the COVID-19 Pandemic
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zeng C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8371399 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We examined the effects of incidental anger on perceived and actual polarization between Democrats and Republicans in the context of two national tragedies, Hurricane Katrina (Study 1) and the mass shooting that targeted Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona (Study 2). We hypothesized that because of its relevance to intergroup conflict, incidental anger exacerbates the political polarization effects of issue partisanship (the correlation between partisan identification and partisan attitudes), and, separately, the correlation between conservative partisan identification and perceived polarization between Democrats and Republicans. We further hypothesized that these effects would be strongest for Republican identification because Republican leaders were targets of public criticism in both tragedies and because conservative (Republican) ideology tends to be more sensitive to threat. In the studies, participants first completed an emotion induction procedure by recalling autobiographical events that made them angry (Studies 1 & 2), sad (Studies 1 & 2), or that involved recalling emotionally neutral events (Study 2). Participants later reported their attitudes regarding the two tragedies, their perceptions of the typical Democrat's and Republican's attitudes on those issues, and their identification with the Democratic and Republican parties. Compared with incidental sadness (Studies 1 and 2) and a neutral condition (Study 2), incidental anger exacerbated the associations between Republican identification and partisan attitudes, and, separately between Republican identification and perceived polarization between the attitudes of Democrats and Republicans. We discuss implications for anger's influence on political attitude formation and perceptions of group differences in political attitudes.
| S-EPMC4583401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social scientists have devoted considerable research effort to investigate the determinants of the Partisan Gender Gap (PGG), whereby US women (men) tend to exhibit more liberal (conservative) political preferences over time. Results of a survey experiment run during the COVID-19 emergency and involving 3,086 US residents show that exposing subjects to alternative narratives on the causes of the pandemic increases the PGG: relative to a baseline treatment in which no narrative manipulation is implemented, exposing subjects to either the Lab narrative (claiming that COVID-19 was caused by a lab accident in Wuhan) or the Nature narrative (according to which COVID-19 originated in the wildlife) makes women more liberal. The polarization effect documented in our experiment is magnified by the political orientation of participants' state of residence: the largest PGG effect is between men residing in Republican-leaning states and women living in Democratic-leaning states. JEL Classification: J16, D83, C83, C99, P16, D72.
| S-EPMC8253555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:"Culture wars" involve the puzzling alignment of partisan identity with disparate policy positions, lifestyle choices, and personal morality. Explanations point to ideological divisions, core values, moral emotions, and cognitive hardwiring. Two "multiple worlds" experiments (n = 4581) tested an alternative explanation based on the sensitivity of opinion cascades to the initial conditions. Consistent with recent studies, partisan divisions in the influence condition were much larger than in the control group (without influence). The surprise is that bigger divisions indicate less predictability. Emergent positions adopted by Republicans and opposed by Democrats in one experimental "world" had the opposite outcome in other parallel worlds. The unpredictability suggests that what appear to be deep-rooted partisan divisions in our own world may have arisen through a tipping process that might just as easily have tipped the other way. Public awareness of this counter-intuitive possibility has the potential to encourage greater tolerance for opposing opinions.
| S-EPMC6713491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rising hostility between members of opposing political factions has gained considerable attention in both academic and popular press. The adverse effects of this phenomenon are widely recognized, but its psychological antecedents remain the focus of ongoing debate in political psychology. Past research has honed in on two conflicting explanations: one highlights the extent to which people self-define as supporters of particular parties or candidates (the identity view), and another points toward the intensity with which they disagree on substantive matters of policy (the issues view). A nationally representative survey of 1051 eligible Spanish voters yielded support for both explanations. The perceived magnitude and nature of disagreement were associated with increased partisan prejudice, while controlling for partisan identification. Path analyses revealed that issue-based prejudice was more pronounced among ideologically extreme agents (? = 0.237, 95% CI [0.174, 0.300]) than toward extreme targets (? = 0.140, 95% CI [0.078, 0.201]), and replicated recent findings that identity-based prejudice is motivated primarily by non-instrumental factors (? = 0.286, 95% CI [0.230, 0.337]). Together, these results indicate that discrimination across party lines responds to two fundamentally distinct, though at times co-occurring, imperatives: to coalesce in ideologically homogeneous communities, and to protect one's sense of partisan identity.
| S-EPMC6634413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We study partisan differences in Americans' response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Political leaders and media outlets on the right and left have sent divergent messages about the severity of the crisis, which could impact the extent to which Republicans and Democrats engage in social distancing and other efforts to reduce disease transmission. We develop a simple model of a pandemic response with heterogeneous agents that clarifies the causes and consequences of heterogeneous responses. We use location data from a large sample of smartphones to show that areas with more Republicans engaged in less social distancing, controlling for other factors including public policies, population density, and local COVID cases and deaths. We then present new survey evidence of significant gaps at the individual level between Republicans and Democrats in self-reported social distancing, beliefs about personal COVID risk, and beliefs about the future severity of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC7409721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research Summary:The COVID-19 pandemic will rank among the greatest challenges many executives will have faced and not only due to the operational challenges it posed. Upon entering the U.S. context, the disease was immediately politically polarized, with clear partisan splits forming in risk perceptions of the disease unrelated to science. We exploit this context to examine whether firms' partisan positioning affects whether and how they communicate risk to their investors on a polarized public policy issue. To do so, we examine the covariation between firms' disclosure of COVID-19 risks and the partisanship of their political giving. Our analysis of earnings call and campaign contribution data for the S&P 500 reveals a positive association between a firm's contributions to Democrats and its disclosure of COVID-19 risks. Managerial Summary:From its onset in the United States, attitudes toward and discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic was heavily politicized and perceptions of the disease's risks were seen as more serious by Democratic-identifying individuals than Republican identifiers. In this study, we examine whether this pattern also holds for U.S. publicly traded firms, who can also stake out a political position through their corporate political action committee campaign contributions. In analyses of earnings call transcripts from the first quarter of 2020, we show that the more Republican-leaning (Democrat-leaning) a firm's campaign contributions are, the less (more) likely it was to voluntarily disclose risks related to COVID-19. We argue that these findings hold implications for parties interested in interpreting firm's risk disclosures on politically polarized issues.
| S-EPMC8661910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Men have been observed to have a greater willingness to compete compared to women, and it is possible that this contributes to gender differences in wages and career advancement. Policy interventions such as quotas are sometimes used to remedy this but these may cause unintended side-effects. Here, we present experimental evidence that a simple and practically costless tool-priming subjects with power-can close the gender gap in competitiveness. While in a neutral as well as in a low-power priming situation men are much more likely than women to choose competition, this gap vanishes when subjects are primed with a high-power situation. We show that priming with high power makes competition entry decisions more realistic and also that it reduces the level of risk tolerance among male participants, which can help explain why it leads to a closing down of the gender gap in competitiveness.
| S-EPMC6195557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adult children of parents with mental illness experience a myriad of complex emotions as they attempt to make meaning of the lived experiences of their parents. A crucial time for adult children is emerging adulthood, a time when they move away from their family of origin and establish their own identity and independence. Despite existing research that provides a static description of adult children's lived experiences, the literature lacks an explanatory theory about the dynamic, relational processes that occur as adult children progress from one life stage to the next. METHODS:The current study aimed to develop an explanatory theory of the relational trajectory that adult children might experience as they course through adulthood and parenthood over time. Semistructured interviews using grounded theory analysis were conducted with 10 adult children aged between 27 and 51?years old. RESULTS:Three key phases within the Relational Trajectory Model (RTM) were identified: (i) confusion, (ii) contemplation, and (iii) reconciliation. By reflecting on their own parenting role, adult children were able to reach an evolved parental identity, with the majority of participants also making relationship reparations with their parents with mental illness. Parallels are drawn to theories of identity and intergenerational family systems to further explain and substantiate the processes encompassed within the RTM. CONCLUSION:Generating an explanatory theory serves as a potential guide for mental health professionals working with families with parental mental illness, by drawing attention to the intricacies of familial relationships and interpersonal ties.
| S-EPMC7329432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Various theoretical approaches assume that identity diffusion is an influencing factor of extremism. However, there are hardly any empirical tests on this relationship. Based on a nationwide survey of 8,317 young people in Switzerland, the study analyses whether identity diffusion is associated with right-wing extremist, left-wing extremist, and Islamist extremist attitudes. In addition, the study tests whether identity diffusion mediates the influence of family and school-related variables on extremist attitudes. The results show that identity diffusion primarily increases approval of left-wing extremist and Islamist extremist attitudes. Furthermore, identity diffusion mediates to a small extent the influence of parenting on extremist attitudes.
| S-EPMC8505980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Organizations, activists, and scholars hope that conversations between outpartisans (supporters of opposing political parties) can reduce affective polarization (dislike of outpartisans) and bolster democratic accountability (e.g., support for democratic norms). We argue that such conversations can reduce affective polarization but that these effects are likely to be conditional on topic, being especially likely if the conversations topics avoid discussion of areas of disagreement; usually not persist long-term; and be circumscribed, not affecting attitudes toward democratic accountability. We support this argument with two unique experiments where we paired outpartisan strangers to discuss randomly assigned topics over video calls. In study 1, we found that conversations between outpartisans about their perfect day dramatically decreased affective polarization, although these impacts decayed long-term. Study 2 also included conversations focusing on disagreement (e.g., why each supports their own party), which had no effects. Both studies found little change in attitudes related to democratic accountability.
| S-EPMC9217089 | biostudies-literature