Political disagreement in intergroup terms: contextual variation and the influence of power.
In two studies we examined justified attributions made in the face of political disagreement. Study 1 showed that Australian supporters and opponents of Australian involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq made stereotypical attributions that justified the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. Stereotypical attributions were consistent with the justification that the supporters of the war had been misled by dishonest political leaders. Study 2 replicated this pattern with supporters and opponents of Australia's policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It also identified pragmatism as a dimension that dominant, government-aligned, groups may use to justify the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. In both studies political leaders were seen as more competent than members of the public. The results show the influence of intergroup power and within-group leader/supporter distinctions on people's attributions about political disagreement. They point to the power of social psychological theory to help analyse important contemporary political concerns.
OBrien
Léan V
LV
School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Lean.OBrien@anu.edu.au
McGarty
Craig
C
D000293:Adolescent; D001315:Australia; D054242:Emigrants and Immigrants / Q000523:psychology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D054542:Iraq War, 2003-2011; D007857:Leadership; D008297:Male; D011057:Politics; D011209:Power, Psychological; D011639:Public Opinion; D011640:Public Policy; D012036:Refugees / Q000523:psychology*; D012930:Social Dominance; D012933:Social Identification; D012935:Social Justice; D013240:Stereotyping; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult