In political judgment contrast is stronger than assimilation, especially when polarization is high

Yoav Ganzach

نتاج البحث: نشر في مجلةمقالةمراجعة النظراء

ملخص

Past research suggested that assimilation (i.e., the tendency to exaggerate the similarity between one’s ideological position and the position of a preferred political object) is stronger than contrast (i.e., the tendency to exaggerate the dissimilarity between one’s ideological position and the position of a non-preferred political object). However, critiques of this research argue that this conclusion is unwarranted because it is biased toward assimilation appearing stronger than contrast. In the current study, we examine the ideological judgments of American presidential candidates between 1972 and 2020 and analyze all available subjects (in contrast to previous studies that relied primarily on data collected in the 1970s and 1980s and analyzed only subjects who actually voted), and show that, in these years, contrast was stronger than assimilation. We also show that during these years, there was very little change in assimilation but a substantial increase in contrast. We attribute this change to increased polarization among the American electorate.

اللغة الأصليةالإنجليزيّة
رقم المقالe22
دوريةJudgment and Decision Making
مستوى الصوت19
المعرِّفات الرقمية للأشياء
حالة النشرنُشِر - 2024
منشور خارجيًانعم

بصمة

أدرس بدقة موضوعات البحث “In political judgment contrast is stronger than assimilation, especially when polarization is high'. فهما يشكلان معًا بصمة فريدة.

قم بذكر هذا