Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T16:03:01.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining ideology: Two factors are better than one

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

Philip Robbins  and
Kenneth Shields
Philip Robbins
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. robbinsp@missouri.edu kwsb56@mail.missouri.edu
Kenneth Shields
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. robbinsp@missouri.edu kwsb56@mail.missouri.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hibbing et al. contend that individual differences in political ideology can be substantially accounted for in terms of differences in a single psychological factor, namely, strength of negativity bias. We argue that, given the multidimensional structure of ideology, a better explanation of ideological variation will take into account both individual differences in negativity bias and differences in empathic concern.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 326 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altemeyer, R. A. (1998) The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30:47–91.Google Scholar
Batson, D. (2009) These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In: The social neuroscience of empathy, ed. Decety, J. & Ickes, W., pp. 3–15. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Decety, J. & Moriguchi, Y. (2007) The empathic brain and its dysfunction in psychiatric populations: Implications for intervention across different clinical conditions. BioPsychoSocial Medicine 1:22. doi:10.1186/1751-0759-1-22.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I. & Birum, I. (2002) The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual-process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(1):75–93.Google Scholar
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X. & Peterson, J. B. (2010) Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(5):655–64.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M. & Napier, J. L. (2009) Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology 60:307–37.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–75.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999) Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thakkar, K. N., Brugger, P., and Park, S. (2009) Exploring empathic space: Correlates of perspective transformation ability and biases in spatial attention. PLoS ONE 4(6): e5864. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005864.Google Scholar