The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives
Abstract
Decades of research in social and political psychology have demonstrated that political conservatives appear more intolerant toward a variety of groups than do political liberals. Recent work from our three independent labs has challenged this conventional wisdom by suggesting that some of the psychological underpinnings of intolerance are not exclusive to people on either end of the political spectrum. These studies have demonstrated that liberals and conservatives express similar levels of intolerance toward ideologically dissimilar and threatening groups. We suggest directions for future research and discuss the psychological and political implications of our conclusions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“by challenging official narratives conspiracy theories can actually undermine people's trust in broader societal structures [cf.56] leading to alienation and anomie [10-12, 57, 58] which in turn is linked to non-normative political activism [17**,18].”
From The dark side of social movements: social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories (2020) · cites this paper as [57]
Citations
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
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 · cited 9×
“…indicated that conservatives may have cognitive styles and personality traits (e.g., higher need for closure; lower openness to experience) that may make them more likely to engage in motivated information processing (e.g., Jost et al., 2003), this is not necessarily the case (e.g., Kahan, 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialLiberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015141 · Cited by 4,560
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000968 · Cited by 2,254
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
(2023) · Review of Religious Research · doi:10.1007/13644.2211-4866 · Cited by 1,160
Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. H. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868308319226 · Cited by 1,130
Moral Conviction: Another Contributor to Attitude Strength or Something More?
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895 · Cited by 828
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Crawford J. T., Xhambazi E. (in press). Predicting political biases against the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. Political Psychology.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology
Jost, J. T. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12407 · Cited by 764
OSMUNDSEN, M., BOR, A., VAHLSTRUP, P. B., BECHMANN, A., & PETERSEN, M. B. (2021) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000290 · Cited by 614
Political diversity will improve social psychological science
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x14000430 · Cited by 604
Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions
Frimer, J. A., Skitka, L. J., & Motyl, M. S. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003 · Cited by 383
Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., Celniker, J. B., & Zinger, J. F. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617746796 · Cited by 535
Metadata
- Authors
- Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- DePaul University (US)
- Saint Louis University (US)
- The College of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-34
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2146237990
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 93.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Universiteit van Tilburg
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
- Keywords
- political intolerance, intergroup attitudes, political ideology
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
