Changing Attitudes Toward Prison Reform: Effects of Similarity to Prisoners on Attraction and Rejection1

Human–rights organizations and prisoner advocacy groups try to create positive attitudes toward liberal prison reform by emphasizing similarities between the public and prisoners. Theories of similarity and attraction, however, suggest that this strategy can backfire. Although it commonly increases liking, similarity can increase rejection when the similar other is stigmatized. An experiment tested the efficacy of appeals to similarity in changing prison reform attitudes. Republicans and Democrats listed aspects of themselves that made them similar to or different from prisoners, and then they completed a measure of prison reform attitudes (Silvia, 2003). Emphasizing similarity between the participant and prisoners did not always cause positive attitudes. After focusing on similarity to prisoners, Democrats reported more liberal prison reform attitudes, and Republicans reported more punitive attitudes. Implications for changing attitudes toward prison reform are discussed.     

Attitudes toward abortion,religion, and party affiliation among college students

Public attitudes toward abortion have long been an issue in American political debates. Theoretical understanding of influences on abortion attitudes may assist researchers in determining contributors of the attribution. Accordingly, this study administered a 40-item abortion opinion survey to 396 college students at a Midwestern university to determine potential factors correlated with abortion attitudes. Several factors such as religious involvement, knowledge of someone who has an abortion, and one’s definition as to when life begins were correlated with abortion attitudes. Furthermore, Democrats reported stronger pro-choice views than Republicans did. Similarly, Liberals were more pro-choice oriented than Conservatives. Although causal relationships were not directly explored, theoretical explanations and support provide for a thorough understanding of potential factors of abortion attitude formation and a preliminary model. Future implications are also discussed.     

Attitudes toward abortion, religion, and party affiliation among college students

Public attitudes toward abortion have long been an issue in American political debates. Theoretical understanding of influences on abortion attitudes may assist researchers in determining contributors of the attribution. Accordingly, this study administered a 40-item abortion opinion survey to 396 college students at a Midwestern university to determine potential factors correlated with abortion attitudes. Several factors such as religious involvement, knowledge of someone who has an abortion, and one’s definition as to when life begins were correlated with abortion attitudes. Furthermore, Democrats reported stronger pro-choice views than Republicans did. Similarly, Liberals were more pro-choice oriented than Conservatives. Although causal relationships were not directly explored, theoretical explanations and support provide for a thorough understanding of potential factors of abortion attitude formation and a preliminary model. Future implications are also discussed.     

Individuating information influences partisan judgments

Three studies examined whether Democrats and Republicans expressed favoritism toward an ingroup political candidate, even when the candidates were presented as positive and bipartisan. Participants rated electability and traits, after reading party consistent (Passage 1) and positive, bipartisan information (Passage 2). Conservatism (Studies 1–3), the cognitive reflection test (Studies 2–3), and ingroup loyalty (Study 3) were examined. Republicans showed initially higher favoritism after the first passage. Both Republicans and Democrats showed lower ingroup favoritism after reading the second passage, although Republicans continued to show more favoritism than Democrats in some circumstances. Conservatism was associated with greater favorability toward the Republican candidate. Our results showed no evidence that CRT or ingroup loyalty mediated these associations.     

Friendship and romance across the U.S. political divide: Hindrance or help for outgroup political attitudes?

Consistent with the intergroup contact literature, cross-political relationships (e.g., friendships or romantic relationships between different partisans) may help reduce inter-political group prejudice. Given that unfavorable attitudes based on the political group membership are particularly heightened at present in the United States, we explored whether having cross-political friendships (Study 1) or romantic relationships (Study 2) predict more positive interpersonal or intergroup attitudes among American Democrats and Republicans. In Study 1, using a social network measure (N = 301), where participants reported on their closest friends, cross-political (versus same-political) friendship was associated with less positive interpersonal attitudes when this relationship was unsatisfying. Having any (versus no) or more (versus less) cross-political group friendships was not associated with holding more positive intergroup attitudes. In Study 2, cross-political romantic relationships were examined (N = 392). Having a cross- (versus same-) political romantic relationship was associated with relatively less positive attitudes toward the political outgroup via lower empathy when relationship satisfaction was low. Study findings highlight the potential limitations of the beneficial effects of intergroup contact.     

A conceptual replication examining the risk of overtly listing eligibility criteria on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

Recent scholarship indicates that explicitly listing eligibility requirements on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk can lead to eligibility falsification. Offering a conceptual replication of prior studies, we assessed the prevalence of eligibility falsification and its impact on data integrity. A screener survey collected the summer before the 2016 presidential election assessed political affiliation. Participants were then randomly assigned to be exposed to a second survey link for which they were eligible or ineligible. There was a significant interaction such that the differences between self‐reported Republicans and Democrats on outcome measures (e.g., attitudes toward Hillary Clinton), were smaller among participants that were falsifying eligibility (i.e., imposters) than those that were not (i.e., genuine participants). Moreover, for most outcomes, imposters put forth responses that were significantly different from the responses put forth by those in the political party with which imposters were pretending to be affiliated. Imposters’ responses were also significantly different from participants in the political party with which imposters initially claimed to genuinely belong. For example, those who self‐reported themselves as Democrats on the screener survey but responded to a survey for “only Republicans” (i.e., imposter Republicans), reported more favorable attitudes toward Donald Trump than genuine Democrats, but indicated less favorable attitudes toward Donald Trump than genuine Republicans. These results highlight the potential harms of explicitly listing eligibility requirements and emphasize the importance of minimizing imposter participation.     

Overestimating Reported Prejudice Causes Democrats to Believe Disadvantaged Groups Are Less Electable

Four studies show that Democrats overestimate the explicit prejudice reported by the American electorate, leading them to perceive presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups as less electable. Study 1 (MTurk; n = 728) found that Democrats overestimated the percentage of Americans who say they would not vote for presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups. Study 2 (MTurk; n = 597) replicated this finding and demonstrated that Democrats who perceive high levels of explicit prejudice toward a group also believe presidential candidates from that group are less electable. Moreover, Democrats who more frequently interacted with Republicans were more accurate in estimating the amount of explicit prejudice reported by Republicans, Democrats, and Americans in general. Studies 3A (Prolific; n = 930) and 3B (YouGov; n = 747) found that presenting information about true levels of reported prejudice made Democrats believe generic presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups would be more electable. We did not find evidence that information about true levels of reported prejudice affected Democrats' beliefs about the electability of specific candidates in the 2020 Democratic Primary or their support for these candidates.     

A test of vaccine endorsement by political in- versus out-group sources: Effect on vaccination likelihood and exploration of mediation through perceived bias and liking

This study investigated whether political endorsements from in- versus out-group political elites would influence likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2021, we ran an experiment with Democrats and Republicans in the United States to examine whether they would be more likely to get vaccinated following endorsements by former Presidents Obama or Trump. Participants reported greater likelihood of getting vaccinated if the vaccine was endorsed by an elite from their own rather than the opposing party. This effect was driven by Trump, who increased vaccination likelihood among Republicans but decreased it among Democrats. We also investigated the mechanisms underlying this persuasion effect and found that perceived bias and liking were plausible mediators, whereas perceived trustworthiness and expertise were not. This study highlights the potential of having endorsements from both Democrat and Republican political elites to increase support for health behaviors in a politically charged climate.     

Screw Those Guys: Polarization,Empathy, and Attitudes About Out-Partisans

Empathic ability is the ability to interpret the emotional state of others. In today's highly partisan and polarized environment, empathic ability may play a key role in determining how partisans respond emotionally to changes in public policy and those helped or harmed by the policy. Utilizing Baron-Cohen et al.'s (Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251, 2001) “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test to measure empathic ability, we conduct a survey experiment where we asked participants to read about a partisan individual who may lose their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act were to be repealed. We show that empathic ability shapes attitudes about people and policies, but that the effects are contingent upon the respondent's partisanship, the target's partisanship, and an interaction of the two. Empathic ability produces more positive affect and policy support among Democrats but reduces positive affect among Republicans. The divergent effects of empathic ability on Democrats and Republicans are further exacerbated when the target is an out-partisan.     

The politics of color: Preferences for Republican red versus Democratic blue

The present study reveals that Election Day differentially affects the color preferences of US Republicans and Democrats. Voters’ preferences for Republican red and Democratic blue were assessed, along with several distractor colors, on and around the 2010 interim and 2012 presidential elections. On non-Election Days, Republicans and Democrats preferred Republican red equally, and Republicans actually preferred Democratic blue more than Democrats did. On Election Day, however, Republicans’ and Democrats’ color preferences changed to become more closely aligned with their own party’s colors. Republicans liked Republican red more than Democrats did, and no longer preferred Democratic blue more than Democrats did. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that color preferences are determined by people’s preferences for correspondingly colored objects/entities (Palmer & Schloss in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:8877–8882, 2010). They further suggest that color preferences are calculated at a given moment, depending on which color–object associations are currently most activated or salient. Color preferences are thus far more dynamic and context-dependent than has previously been believed.     

Fear appeals motivate acceptance of action recommendations: evidence for a positive bias in the processing of persuasive messages

Three experiments are reported that tested the hypothesis that the use of fear appeals in health persuasion may lead to positively biased systematic processing of a subsequent action recommendation aimed at reducing the health threat and, consequently, to more persuasion, regardless of the quality of the arguments in the recommendation. The levels of participants' vulnerability to as well as the severity of a health risk were varied independently, followed by a manipulation of the quality of the arguments in the subsequent action recommendation. The dependent variables included measures of persuasion (attitude, intention, and action), negative affect, and cognitive responses. The results show that participants who felt vulnerable to the health threat were more persuaded, experienced more negative emotions, and had more favorable cognitive responses. Both negative emotions concerning one's vulnerability and positive thoughts concerning the recommendation mediated the effects of vulnerability on persuasion.     

When being a model minority is good . . . and bad: realistic threat explains negativity toward Asian Americans

The current research explores the hypothesis that realistic threat is one psychological mechanism that can explain how individuals can hold positive stereotypical beliefs toward Asian Americans yet also express negative attitudes and emotions toward them. Study 1 demonstrates that in a realistic threat context, attitudes and emotions toward an anonymous group described by only positive, "model minority" attributes are significantly more negative than when the group was described using other positive attributes. Study 2 demonstrates that realistic threat significantly mediates the relationship between (a) the endorsement of the both the positive and negative stereotypes of Asian Americans and (b) subsequent negative attitudes and emotions toward them. Studies 3 and 4 conceptually replicate this effect in experimental situations involving interactions with Asian Americans in realistic threat contexts. Implications for understanding the nature of stereotyping and prejudice toward Asian Americans and other minority groups are discussed.     

“Doing Good” versus “Being Good”: The interplay between pride appeals and regulatory-focused messages in green advertising

Many consumers feel proud of making green choices, which is of crucial relevance to explaining environmentally responsible behaviors. However, compared to other self-conscious emotions, such as guilt and shame, little research attention has been paid to the role of pride in green consumerism. Through conducting two online experimental surveys, this research examined what features of a message induce the two facets of the emotion pride—authentic and hubristic—and how pride appeals interact with message frames having different regulatory foci. In Study 1, participants revealed more favorable eco-friendly attitudes and intentions when hubristic pride appeals were combined with promotion-focused messages (detailing the positive benefits of using the green product), and when authentic pride appeals were matched with prevention-focused messages (emphasizing the negative consequences averted by using the green product). Study 2 replicated and supported the proposed matching hypotheses while including a control condition. Findings of this research will add to a growing body of literature on pride as a discrete emotion and its carryover effects on persuasion while providing guidelines to help practitioners design green advertising campaigns.     

Intergroup anxiety and political loss: The buffering effects of believing in the open marketplace of ideas and openness to diverse political discussions

The polarized divide in current U.S. politics continues to separate citizens and impede political decision‐making. Ameliorating this polarization may require addressing intergroup anxiety. The current work examines the buffering effect of endorsing the open marketplace of ideas and openness to engaging in political conversations with people who hold opposing political views on partisans' intergroup anxiety. In Study 1 (N = 319), openness to diverse political discussions negatively predicted postelection intergroup anxiety among Obama supporters in the 2012 U.S. election. Among Romney supporters, endorsement of the open marketplace and openness to diverse political discussions negatively predicted intergroup anxiety. Study 2 (N = 349 Democrats and Republicans), employed an experimental design and produced results consistent with Study 1. For Democrats and Republicans, openness to participating in political discussions characterized by multiple political perspectives was associated with reduced intergroup anxiety. Regardless of the threat of their candidate losing the 2016 election, Republicans (compared to Democrats) expressed reduced intergroup anxiety when endorsing the open marketplace of ideas and being open to engaging in diverse political discussions. Results are discussed in terms of contact theory within the context of the American political system.     

Misery has more company than people think: underestimating the prevalence of others' negative emotions

Four studies document underestimations of the prevalence of others' negative emotions and suggest causes and correlates of these erroneous perceptions. In Study 1a, participants reported that their negative emotions were more private or hidden than were their positive emotions; in Study 1b, participants underestimated the peer prevalence of common negative, but not positive, experiences described in Study 1a. In Study 2, people underestimated negative emotions and overestimated positive emotions even for well-known peers, and this effect was partially mediated by the degree to which those peers reported suppression of negative (vs. positive) emotions. Study 3 showed that lower estimations of the prevalence of negative emotional experiences predicted greater loneliness and rumination and lower life satisfaction and that higher estimations for positive emotional experiences predicted lower life satisfaction. Taken together, these studies suggest that people may think they are more alone in their emotional difficulties than they really are.     

“Family Values” and Political Persuasion: Impact of Kin-Related Rhetoric on Reactions to Political Campaigns1

Within the framework of dual-process models of persuasion, it was hypothesized that including references to kin in a persuasive speech might either (a) promote greater scrutiny of the message by making it seem more value-relevant, or (b) serve as a simple peripheral cue of value congruence. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents read a political speech that varied by argument quality (strong/weak), kin terms (absent/present), and the speaker's party affiliation. Results indicated that Democrats scrutinized the message more when kin terms were used, whereas such terms appeared to discourage message elaboration on the part of Republican participants, but only when used by an in-group member. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the efficacy of political rhetoric using kin terms.     

Pro‐peace or anti‐war: The effect of emotions primed by protest songs on emotions toward in‐group and out‐group in conflict

Members of societies in conflict hold stable positive and negative views, and emotions of the in‐group and out‐group, respectively. Music is a potent tool to express and evoke emotions. It is a social product created within a social and political context, reflecting, and commenting it. Protest songs aim to change views and attitudes toward ongoing conflicts. Their message may be expressed positively (pro‐peace songs) or negatively (anti‐war songs). Previous research has shown that evoking emotions such as guilt toward the in‐group or empathy toward the out‐group may influence attitudes toward reconciliation. The present research, conducted in Israel, presents three studies investigating whether emotions evoked by positive or negative protest songs may influence in‐group members' guilt toward the in‐group (Israeli Jews) and empathy toward the out‐group (Palestinians). Studies 1 and 2 show that negative emotions evoked by negative protests songs predicted both empathy and guilt when the out‐group is considered as a whole (Study 1) or as a particular individual (Study 2). Study 2 in addition showed that empathy predicts an altruistic decision regarding an out‐group member. Emotions evoked by lyrics alone (Study 3) did not contribute to explained variance in either guilt or empathy, nor the altruistic decision. Results suggest that negative emotions expressed by negative protest songs, focused on the in‐group, are more effective in influencing attitudes toward out‐groups. Results are discussed in the context of group emotions in conflict and the role of protest songs in intergroup relations.     

How the Consideration of Positive Emotions Influences Persuasion: The Differential Effect of Pride Versus Joy

Although pride and joy are both positive emotions, we expected their consideration to affect persuasion differently because of the different perspectives (near vs. distant) and level of abstractness they involve, with pride being more abstract than joy. Therefore, we predicted that when the attitude object is construed at a high level rather than a low level, the consideration of pride is likely to promote more persuasion than the consideration of joy. In three studies, we found that the consideration of pride, when featured in the persuasion message (Studies 1a and 1b) or incidentally (Study 2), increased persuasion more than did the consideration of joy, when the persuasion object was temporally distant compared with temporally near (Studies 1a and 1b) or construed as a high‐level category compared with a more concrete individual (Study 2). These findings advance our understanding of the ways in which specific emotions may affect persuasion, beyond valence. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Should President Clinton be prosecuted for perjury? The effects of preference for consistency, self-esteem, and political party affiliation

Conducted in the fall of 2000, this study investigates personality and social variables that should predict attitudes regarding the desirability of prosecuting President Clinton for perjury following the expiration of his term (in January of 2001). Prosecution was favored by High Preference for Consistency (PFC) more than Low PFC individuals, by High Self-Esteem more than Low Self-Esteem individuals, and by Republicans more than Democrats. In addition, PFC and Party Affiliation interacted: High PFCs wanted Clinton prosecuted regardless of Party Affiliation, but Low PFCs desired prosecution strongly only if they were Republicans. Overall, the results are consistent with the general self-theory principle that human beings tend to adopt attitudes and positions that restore, maintain, or enhance self-esteem.