Differences of Liberal and Conservative Views on Social and Economic Issues

Differences of idle and Conservative Views on kind and Economic IssuesPolitical superstition Liberals and mercenarys on mixer and frugal get bys.AbstractIn recent studies full(a)s and cautiouss contract been facen to distill represent amounts of fanaticism towards groups with conglomerate ideologies (Brandt et al., 2014 Crawford et al., 2017). This goes against decades of studies that show that traditionalists express high trains of intolerance comp atomic number 18d to panoptics (Sibley and Duckitt, 2008). This postulate explores causations why recent studies hand everyplace adopted a ameliorate methodological analysis and issues with the vast sum of previous studies. We test participants intolerance towards groups that start out policy-making ideologies both comparable and variant to their bear. The results show mixed yard both keep and not substituteing the intolerance equality claim. We look at reasons why this could be the case and posture an im provement for future studies.IntroductionConservative governmental ideologies has for decades been linked to high levels of intolerance and prejudice comp atomic number 18d to opposing big(a) policy-making ideologies (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). This has created the idea that large-mindeds are also therefore more than tolerant and express less prejudice. This has resulted in what looks like a prejudice gap between the twain ideologies (Farwell & Weiner, 2000). tardily these finding learn been brought into question. New studies support that both button-down and liberal ideologies are equal in intolerance and prejudice, thus disproving the prejudice gap, towards views that tacking fathert match their own. This mull over explores the relationship between an singles political ideology and their intolerance towards an out-group. Intolerance and prejudice are virtually related. Intolerance is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from ones own. preconception is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. One issue with previous studies is that they focused almost minority groups such(prenominal) as African Americans, homosexuals and immigrants (Sears & Henry, 2003 (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010 Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). These minority groups tend to have a prepossession towards liberal political ideologies. This is crucial in recognising as it shows that these types of studies focus on tolerance demonstrated by liberals and conservatives towards largely liberal groups. The current research that has demonstrated that liberals and conservatives show equal amounts of intolerance have done so by exploring the tolerance of conservatives and liberals towards both liberal and conservative groups. It was found that liberals and conservatives express negative prejudices towards groups whose values are contrary from their own (Morgan, Mullen, & Skitka, 2010). In addition mass who had conservati ve or liberal views fifty-fifty tended to p adjoin to distance themselves from others who did not share akin(predicate) views (Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005).One study that explored this concept developed the ideologic remainder scheme (ICH) (Brandt et al., 2014). The ICH proposes that people of different political views are willing to express intolerance and prejudice towards political ideologies that are not standardised to their own. The ICH proposes that conservatives and liberals engage in tactics such as actuate data get across and defence against worldview-violating groups to defend their ideologies. move information processing is when an individual is selective about information they process. Individuals will acquire in information that supports their worldview small-arm filtering out and ignoring information that mesh with their worldviews, (Kunda, 1990). Research has shown that both liberals and conservatives engage in motivated information processing when p resented with an opposing political ideology (Bartels, 2002 Crawford, Jussim, Cain, & Cohen, 2013). Defence against worldview-violating groups is the need to maintain a constant worldview. This wanting of a constant worldview leads to increased intolerance towards groups whose ideologies are dissimilar to the individuals (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006). Studies have shown that both conservatives and liberals share the same level of enthusiasm in regards to their ideologies (Skitka & Bauman, 2008). Building on from ICH one study proposed a scheme of multi-dimensional ideological troth (Crawford et al., 2017). Previous research in this area tends to treat political ideologies as a single dimension a bow is either liberal or conservative (Jost et al., 2003) meaning the concept of ideological conflict and had one dimension to it. However this not the case, as there is growing evidence to support that there is more indeed one dimension to an individuals political ideologies (Crawford et al., 2017) that is a person may have a conservative view in one area and a liberal view in another, each view is a dimension. together with these dimensions create the persons worldview and ideology, however they are not longer belonging to provided one group, conservative or liberal. This study looked at social and scotch ideologies. accessible ideology tends to refer to issues regarding personal freedoms (abortion, same-sex marriage etc) with conservatives tending to save greater restriction and liberals favouring fewer restrictions in these areas. Economic ideology tends to refer to matters evolving the economy, with conservatives favouring less government regulations and liberals favouring greater government regulation. This study found two interesting patterns the outgrowth is that it found support for ICH. That is both conservatives and liberals showed equal levels of intolerance towards views that were dissimilar to their own. The countenance finding was that liberals and conservatives, while still showing equal levels of intolerance, reported to have higher levels of conflict towards social ideologies compared to economic ideologies. license supporting this notion suggest that a persons position on social issues more strongly labels them as a liberal or conservative compared to their views of economic issues (Feldman & Johnston, 2013), allowing for a greater intensity of conflict to arise when presented with dissimilar social ideologies compared to economic ideologies. Recent studies are pointing towards two new developments in the understanding of political ideological conflict. The first is that individuals that are conservative or liberal will express equal levels of intolerance towards groups or ideas dissimilar to their own (Brandt et al., 2014). The second is that individuals can have both conservative and liberal views at the same time, but belonging to different dimensions (Crawford et al., 2017), such as social or economic. In addition to this the level of intolerance/conflict expressed is higher for social issues compared to economic. This leads to this studies hypothesis, it is expected that the results will support ICH, that organism that both liberal and conservative participants will show equal levels of intolerance towards groups with dissimilar political ideologies. Additionally it is expected to see higher levels of intolerance/conflict in the social dimension then the economic dimension. countersignIn this study we explored the intolerance levels of participants who held conservative/liberal views towards groups of both similar and dissimilar views on social and economic issues. The results both supported and did not support our hypotheses. In the social domain test we found evidence in favour of our hypothesis, however in the economic domain we found evidence that contradicted our initial hypotheses.In the social domain, our findings supported our first hypothesis participants were found to show equal levels of intolerance towards social ideologies that were dissimilar to them. This supports the ideological conflict hypothesis (Brandt et al., 2014). As the ICH states, the manageable reasons for the results found in this study is due to motivated information processing (Kunda, 1990) and defence against worldview-violating groups (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006 Skitka & Bauman, 2008). This states that when liberals or conservative form ideas on a group with political ideologies not similar to their own, they are likely to form ideas that confirm their current ideology, this typically leads to the individual forming negative views towards groups of dissimilar ideologies. This is appropriate as this study presented randomly charge participants to an out-group with randomly assigned political ideologies, meaning that participants would either be opposite to an out-group that had similar or dissimilar political views. Additionally to this finding, it was noted participants showed higher l evels of tolerance towards groups who shared similar political ideology. This provides additional evidence in favour of the ICH, as it is expected that when a participant is presented with a similar view to their own, they should express less intolerance. The question this brings up however is why our findings matched ICH and not the vastly large collection of studies that found conservatives to be more intolerant (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). This is explained through the methodology of this experiment. Unlike the majority of studies conducted in the meta-analysis (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008), this study looked at the intolerance towards groups that held both liberal and conservative views. Previous studies tended to only look at the intolerance towards groups who are easily associated with liberal views (Sears & Henry, 2003 (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010 Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). This experiments methodology closely matched (Brandt et al., 2014) which provides reasoning behind why t he results ended up supporting ICH over the vast majority of studies conducted. However due to the large multitude of studies against our hypothesis, its important to properly address this. A large symmetry of social and political psychologists identify as a liberal with mostly liberal values (Inbar & Lammers, 2012). As ICH would look for, these liberal researchers could be experiencing motivated information processing and defence against worldview-violating groups. One study found that liberal psychologists tended to examine topics that are of greater importance to liberal ideology (Mullen, Bauman, & Skitka, 2003). So while not discrediting these previous studies, there is evidence supporting a warp within them. This provides further evidence to why our study did not chuck their results as well as why it is okay that it didnt.In the economic domain, our findings did not support our first hypothesis, and gave weak evidence towards our second hypothesis. The first hypothesis th at this goes against is that both liberals and conservatives will express equal levels of intolerance. Our findings show that conservatives have a much greater intolerance towards groups with dissimilar economic ideologies. The second hypothesis was that social domains would show a higher level of conflict compared to the economic domain. While this remains true for liberal participants and conservatives presented with a conservative out-group. Conservatives presented with an economically liberal out-group demonstrated a much higher level of intolerance, which goes against our second hypothesis. This could be explained if there was a skew in our warning size, this being more liberals then conservatives or vice versa. This leads to one possible error in this study, a sample bias. The target group in this experiment was university students with an average age of around 21-22. One Australian sail found that for the ages of 18-24 and 25-34, political groups with liberal ideologies (e. g. labour party and the greens) dominated over the conservative Australian liberal party (Roy Morgan, 2017). This brings up one issue with the experiment conducted, that is that we did not take into account the number of liberals compared to conservatives and thus over-looked the conjecture for a sample skew. If there was a skew in the political identities of participants (favouring liberals) one reason for higher intolerance could be explained according to political conformity (Cohen, 2003). In an age group with a majority of liberal minded individuals, an individual needs to have strong belief in their ideologies to not conform politicly to the majority. So if there was a skew and the people who identified as conservative had strong conservative ideologies, this would example why results showed conservatives more intolerant in economic domains. Further research is involve where the sample size is correctly identified and taken into account. In stopping point this study found ev idence that both supported and did not support our hypotheses. Over the social domain we see evidence of ICH however this is not seen in the economic domain. This could be due to a sample bias that was not taken into account by researchers. Future studies, which control and take into account any sample biases, are needed. ReferencesBartels L. M. (2002).Beyond the running discipline Partisan bias in political perceptions.Political Behavior, 24, pp.117150.Brandt, M.,Reyna, C., Chambers, J., Crawford, J. and Wetherell, G. (2014). The Ideological-ConflictHypothesis.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1),pp.27-34.Chambers, J.and Melnyk, D. (2006). Why Do I Hate Thee? Conflict Misperceptions andIntergroup Mistrust.character and favorable psychology Bulletin,32(10), pp.1295-1311.Cohen, G.(2003). Party Over Policy The Dominating jounce of Group Influence onPolitical Beliefs.Journal of temperament and companionable Psychology,85(5), pp.808-822.Crawford, J.,Brandt, M., Inbar , Y., Chambers, J. and Motyl, M. (2017). Social and economicideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, butsocial issues are most divisive.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 112(3), pp.383-412.Crawford, J.,Jussim, L., Cain, T. and Cohen, F. (2013). Right-wing authoritarianism andsocial dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of mediareports.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), pp.163-174.Farwell, L.and Weiner, B. (2000). Bleeding Hearts and the obdurate Popular Perceptionsof Liberal and Conservative Ideologies.Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 26(7), pp.845-852.Feldman, S.and Johnston, C. (2013). reasonableness the Determinants of Political IdeologyImplications of Structural Complexity.Political Psychology, 35(3),pp.337-358.Inbar, Y. andLammers, J. (2012). Political Diversity in Social and PersonalityPsychology.SSRN Electronic Journal.Jost, J.,Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. and Sulloway, F. (2003). Polit ical conservatism asmotivated social cognition.Psychological Bulletin, 129(3),pp.339-375.Kunda, Z.(1990). The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,108(3), pp.480-498.Meertens, R.and Pettigrew, T. (1997). Is Subtle preconception Really Prejudice?.PublicOpinion Quarterly, 61(1, Special Issue on Race), p.54.Morgan, G.,Mullen, E. and Skitka, L. (2010). When Values and Attributions CollideLiberals and Conservatives Values Motivate Attributions for AllegedMisdeeds.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9),pp.1241-1254.Mullen, E.,Bauman, C. and Skitka, L. (2003). Avoiding the Pitfalls of PoliticizedPsychology.Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1),pp.171-176.Roy Morgan.(2017).L-NP (51%) takes the lead over ALP (49%) with only 3 weeks togo. online Available athttp//roymorgan.com.au/findings/51115-morgan-poll-august-19-2013-201308181432Accessed 1 Oct. 2017.Sears, D. andHenry, P. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol ogy, 85(2), pp.259-275.Sibley, C.and Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and Prejudice A Meta-Analysis andTheoretical Review.Personality and Social Psychology Review,12(3), pp.248-279.Skitka, L.and Bauman, C. (2008). Moral Conviction and Political Engagement.PoliticalPsychology, 29(1), pp.29-54.Skitka, L.,Bauman, C. and Sargis, E. (2005). Moral Conviction some other Contributor toAttitude Strength or Something More?.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 88(6), pp.895-917.Terrizzi, J.,Shook, N. and Ventis, W. (2010). Disgust A predictor of social conservatismand negative attitudes toward homosexuals.Personality andIndividual Differences, 49(6), pp.587-592.