Asymmetries abound

Ideological differences in emotion, partisanship, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article is a response to Rao (2017), Krishna and Sokolova (2017), and Oyserman and Schwarz (2017), all of whom provided extremely thoughtful commentaries on a target article in which I summarized several lines of research in political psychology on liberal-conservative differences in personality, cognition, motivation, values, and neurological structures and functions (Jost, 2017a). I begin by correcting a possible misconception, namely that the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition cannot explain dynamic shifts in ideological affinities; on the contrary, we have demonstrated that “top-down” situational—as well as “bottom-up” dispositional—processes work in conjunction to produce ideological outcomes, and this is why tailored forms of political persuasion can be highly effective in producing change. Next I describe additional evidence (including previously unpublished evidence) bearing on ideological symmetries and asymmetries with respect to emotion, partisanship, social identification, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust. I end by asking consumer psychologists for their continued collaboration in addressing profound challenges associated with understanding and reconciling sources of ideological divergence—not only for the sake of research in behavioral science but also for the smooth functioning of democratic society.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)546-553
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Consumer Psychology
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

Social Support
Cognition
Emotions
Psychology
Persuasive Communication
Behavioral Sciences
Social Identification
Research
Personality
Motivation
Social networks
Motivated reasoning
Partisanship
Network structure
Asymmetry
Emotion
Persuasion
Social identification
Top-down
Behavioral science

Keywords

  • Conservatism
  • Ideology
  • Liberalism
  • Motivation
  • Political psychology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Marketing

Cite this

@article{893331baac6c4b4c80e51804d9a0e017,
title = "Asymmetries abound: Ideological differences in emotion, partisanship, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust",
abstract = "This article is a response to Rao (2017), Krishna and Sokolova (2017), and Oyserman and Schwarz (2017), all of whom provided extremely thoughtful commentaries on a target article in which I summarized several lines of research in political psychology on liberal-conservative differences in personality, cognition, motivation, values, and neurological structures and functions (Jost, 2017a). I begin by correcting a possible misconception, namely that the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition cannot explain dynamic shifts in ideological affinities; on the contrary, we have demonstrated that “top-down” situational—as well as “bottom-up” dispositional—processes work in conjunction to produce ideological outcomes, and this is why tailored forms of political persuasion can be highly effective in producing change. Next I describe additional evidence (including previously unpublished evidence) bearing on ideological symmetries and asymmetries with respect to emotion, partisanship, social identification, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust. I end by asking consumer psychologists for their continued collaboration in addressing profound challenges associated with understanding and reconciling sources of ideological divergence—not only for the sake of research in behavioral science but also for the smooth functioning of democratic society.",
keywords = "Conservatism, Ideology, Liberalism, Motivation, Political psychology",
author = "John Jost",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcps.2017.08.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "546--553",
journal = "Journal of Consumer Psychology",
issn = "1057-7408",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Asymmetries abound

T2 - Ideological differences in emotion, partisanship, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust

AU - Jost, John

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - This article is a response to Rao (2017), Krishna and Sokolova (2017), and Oyserman and Schwarz (2017), all of whom provided extremely thoughtful commentaries on a target article in which I summarized several lines of research in political psychology on liberal-conservative differences in personality, cognition, motivation, values, and neurological structures and functions (Jost, 2017a). I begin by correcting a possible misconception, namely that the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition cannot explain dynamic shifts in ideological affinities; on the contrary, we have demonstrated that “top-down” situational—as well as “bottom-up” dispositional—processes work in conjunction to produce ideological outcomes, and this is why tailored forms of political persuasion can be highly effective in producing change. Next I describe additional evidence (including previously unpublished evidence) bearing on ideological symmetries and asymmetries with respect to emotion, partisanship, social identification, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust. I end by asking consumer psychologists for their continued collaboration in addressing profound challenges associated with understanding and reconciling sources of ideological divergence—not only for the sake of research in behavioral science but also for the smooth functioning of democratic society.

AB - This article is a response to Rao (2017), Krishna and Sokolova (2017), and Oyserman and Schwarz (2017), all of whom provided extremely thoughtful commentaries on a target article in which I summarized several lines of research in political psychology on liberal-conservative differences in personality, cognition, motivation, values, and neurological structures and functions (Jost, 2017a). I begin by correcting a possible misconception, namely that the theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition cannot explain dynamic shifts in ideological affinities; on the contrary, we have demonstrated that “top-down” situational—as well as “bottom-up” dispositional—processes work in conjunction to produce ideological outcomes, and this is why tailored forms of political persuasion can be highly effective in producing change. Next I describe additional evidence (including previously unpublished evidence) bearing on ideological symmetries and asymmetries with respect to emotion, partisanship, social identification, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust. I end by asking consumer psychologists for their continued collaboration in addressing profound challenges associated with understanding and reconciling sources of ideological divergence—not only for the sake of research in behavioral science but also for the smooth functioning of democratic society.

KW - Conservatism

KW - Ideology

KW - Liberalism

KW - Motivation

KW - Political psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029701907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029701907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcps.2017.08.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jcps.2017.08.004

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 546

EP - 553

JO - Journal of Consumer Psychology

JF - Journal of Consumer Psychology

SN - 1057-7408

IS - 4

ER -