Preregistered Replication of “Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority”
Abstract
There is currently a debate in political psychology about whether dogmatism and belief superiority are symmetric or asymmetric across the ideological spectrum. One study found that dogmatism was higher amongst conservatives than liberals, but both conservatives and liberals with extreme attitudes reported higher perceived belief superiority (Toner, Leary, Asher & Jongman-Sereno, 2013). Our goal was to conduct a pre-registered direct and conceptual replication of this previous research using a larger and more nationally representative sample. Consistent with prior research, we found that conservatives had higher dogmatism scores than liberals while both conservatives and liberals with extreme attitudes were associated with higher belief superiority compared to those with more moderate attitudes. Moreover, whether conservative or liberal attitudes were associated with higher belief superiority was topic dependent. Different from prior research, we found that ideologically extreme individuals had higher dogmatism. We discuss the implications of these results for theoretical debates in political psychology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Extremists tend to be dogmatic and present their beliefs as facts.
“Extremists tend to be dogmatic and to present their beliefs as facts (Harris & Van Bavel 2020, Toner et al. 2013), and they may incite others to become more ideologically polarized.”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Harris & Van Bavel 2020
Cites
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Harris, E. A., & Van Bavel, J. J.
- Affiliations
- New York University
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2020-05-20
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- Preprint
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