The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exceptions that prove the rule--Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003).
Abstract
A meta-analysis by J. T. Jost, J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski, and F. J. Sulloway (2003) concluded that political conservatism is partially motivated by the management of uncertainty and threat. In this reply to J. Greenberg and E. Jonas (2003), conceptual issues are clarified, numerous political anomalies are explained, and alleged counterexamples are incorporated with a dynamic model that takes into account differences between “young” and “old” movements. Studies directly pitting the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis against the ideological extremity hypothesis demonstrate strong support for the former. Medium to large effect sizes describe relations between political conservatism and dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; lack of openness to experience; uncertainty avoidance; personal needs for order, structure, and closure; fear of death; and system threat.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904
Self-citation
Cited by
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · Cited by 3,173
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x · Cited by 2,883
Self-citationPolitical Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 · Cited by 2,125
Self-citationA Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour
MONDAK, J. J., & HALPERIN, K. D. (2008) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123408000173 · Cited by 645
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491
Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America
Settle, J. E. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108560573 · Cited by 377
Death Goes to the Polls: A Meta-Analysis of Mortality Salience Effects on Political Attitudes
Burke, B. L., Kosloff, S., & Landau, M. J. (2013) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12005 · Cited by 209
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2009) · Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320916.003.015 · Cited by 207
The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions
Zmigrod, L. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.016 · Cited by 162
Toner, K., Leary, M. R., Asher, M. W., & Jongman-Sereno, K. P. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613494848 · Cited by 141
Ideology and the promotion of social change
Becker, J. C. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.005 · Cited by 117
Porat, R., Tamir, M., Wohl, M. J. A., Gur, T., & Halperin, E. (2019) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2018.1460321 · Cited by 53
Terror Management Theory: A Practical Review of Research and Application
Arrowood, R. B., & Cox, C. R. (2020) · Brill Research Perspectives in Religion and Psychology · doi:10.1163/25897128-12340003 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 383-393
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2163421949
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
