Seeking Evidence of The MAGA Cult and Trump Derangement Syndrome: An Examination of (A)symmetric Political Bias
Open accessAbstract
Three studies sought to explore the existence of (a)symmetric bias regarding Donald Trump. In Study 1, participants read one of three statements expressing different degrees of favorability toward electing the President of the United States via a National Popular Vote attributed to Trump or an anonymous source. In Study 2, participants read one of two statements either favoring or disfavoring the name change of the Washington NFL franchise, and the statement was attributed to either Trump or an anonymous source. In Study 3, Trump and Biden voters were asked to rate their support or opposition to counting all the votes in battleground states when continued counting was expected to either help Trump or Biden. Results for all three studies supported the asymmetric bias hypothesis. Trump supporters consistently showed bias in favor of the interests and ostensible positions of Trump, whereas Trump’s detractors did not show an opposing bias.
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
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.
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?
Issue or ideological polarization implies either symmetric polarization, in which two groups move in opposite, more extreme directions, or asymmetric polarization, in which one group becomes more extreme than the other.
“This implies either that two groups — such as liberals and conservatives or leftists and rightists — are moving in opposite, more extreme directions (symmetric polarization) or that one group is becoming more extreme than the other (asymmetric polarization10,34,47,48,73–75).”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [75]
Section 1.4 (Overview; page unavailable) describes symmetric polarization as Trump supporters’ views shifting toward his position while detractors’ views shift against it. Sections 1.2 and 1.3 discuss unequal versus comparable political bias between liberals and conservatives. The paper does not establish the claim’s broader definition in terms of two groups moving toward more extreme ideological positions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the USA, in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise are more strongly associated with conservative ideology and Republican identification than with liberal ideology and Democratic identification.
“in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise seem to be more strongly associated with conservative ideology and Republican identification in the USA than with liberal ideology and Democratic identification10,73–75.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [75]
Section 11.1 (page unavailable) finds a stronger self-serving voting pattern among Trump voters than Biden voters, supporting a narrower claim about in-group favouritism. The paper does not establish the claimed pattern for out-group derogation or refusal to compromise, or for Republican and Democratic identification generally; section 1.3 also reports research finding equal prejudice across the ideological divide. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 52
- Heltzel, G.; Laurin, K. Polarization in America: Two possible futures. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2020, 34, 179-184. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Abramowitz, A.; Mccoy, J. United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump's America. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2018, 681, 137-156. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Crandall, C.S.; Miller, J.M.; White, M.H. Changing Norms Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2018, 9, 186-192. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Franks, A.S. The Conditional Effects of Candidate Sex and Sexism on Perceived Electability and Voting Intentions: Evidence from the 2020 Democratic Primary. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2020. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Hassan, S. The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.psyc (accessed on 3 September 2021).
- Jost, J.T.; Glaser, J.; Kruglanski, A.W.; Sulloway, F.J. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 129, 339-375. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Maccoun, R.J.; Paletz, S. Citizens' perceptions of ideological bias in research on public policy controversies. Political Psychol. 2009, 30, 43-65. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Faris, R.M.; Roberts, H.; Etling, B.; Bourassa, N.; Zuckerman, E.; Benkler, Y. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election; Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
- Hmielowski, J.D.; Hutchens, M.J.; Beam, M.A. Asymmetry of partisan media effects? Examining the reinforcing process of conservative and liberal media with political beliefs. Political Commun. 2020, 37, 852-868. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Jost, J.T. Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychol. 2017, 38, 167-208. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Jost, J.T.; Glaser, J.; Sulloway, F.J.; Kruglanski, A.W. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. In The Motivated Mind The Selected Works of Arie W. Kruglanski; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 129-204. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Dittmar, H.; Dickinson, J. The perceived relationship between the belief in a just world and sociopolitical ideology. Soc. Justice Res. 1993, 6, 257-272. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Heaven, P.C.; Ciarrochi, J.; Leeson, P. Cognitive ability, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: A five-year longitudinal study amongst adolescents. Intelligence 2011, 39, 15-21. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Pratto, F.; Sidanius, J.; Stallworth, L.M.; Malle, B.F. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 741-763. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Vecchione, M.; Schoen, H.; Castro, J.L.; Cieciuch, J.; Pavlopoulos, V.; Caprara, G.V. Personality correlates of party preference: The Big Five in five big European countries. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 51, 737-742. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Franks, A.S.; Scherr, K.C. Analytic thinking reduces anti-atheist bias in voting intentions. Int. J. Psychol. Relig. 2017, 27, 129-140. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Jost, J.T.; Krochik, M. Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: Implications for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. Adv. Motiv. Sci. 2014, 1, 181-231.
- Zmigrod, L.; Rentfrow, P.J.; Robbins, T.W. Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of Brexit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E4532-E4540. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Amodio, D.M.; Jost, J.T.; Master, S.L.; Yee, C.M. Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nat. Neurosci. 2007, 10, 1246-1247. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Kanai, R.; Feilden, T.; Firth, C.; Rees, G. Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21, 677-680. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Ditto, P.H.; Liu, B.S.; Clark, C.J.; Wojcik, S.P.; Chen, E.E.; Grady, R.H.; Zinger, J.F. At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 14, 273-291. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Baron, J.; Jost, J.T. False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 14, 292-303. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
- Altemeyer, R.A.; Altemeyer, B. Right-Wing Authoritarianism; University of Manitoba Press: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1981.
- Conway, L.G.; Houck, S.C.; Gornick, L.J.; Repke, M.A. Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychol. 2017, 39, 1049-1067. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Conway, L.G.; Gornick, L.J.; Houck, S.C.; Anderson, C.; Stockert, J.; Sessoms, D.; McCue, K. Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychol. 2015, 37, 777-798. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Brandt, M.J.; Reyna, C.; Chambers, J.R.; Crawford, J.; Wetherell, G. The ideological-congruence hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. SSRN Electron. J. 2013, 23, 27-34. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Brandt, M.J. Predicting ideological prejudice. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 28, 713-722. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Wetherell, G.A.; Brandt, M.J.; Reyna, C. Discrimination across the ideological divide. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2013, 4, 658-667. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Frimer, J.A.; Skitka, L.J.; Motyl, M. Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 72, 1-12. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Lord, C.G.; Ross, L.; Lepper, M.R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37, 2098-2109. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Cohen, G.L. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 85, 808-822. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149-1160. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
- Strömberg, D. How the electoral college influences campaigns and policy: The probability of being Florida. Am. Econ. Rev. 2008, 98, 769-807. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Pennycook, G.; Cheyne, J.A.; Barr, N.; Koehler, D.J.; Fugelsang, J.A. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2015, 10, 549-563.
- Pfattheicher, S.; Schindler, S. Misperceiving bullshit as profound is associated with favorable views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and conservatism. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153419. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Bekafigo, M.A.; Stepanova, E.V.; Eiler, B.A.; Noguchi, K.; Ramsey, K.L. The effect of group polarization on opposition to Donald Trump. Political Psychol. 2019, 40, 1163-1178. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Cowburn, M.; Oswald, M.T. Legislator adoption of the fake news label: Ideological differences in Republican representative use on Twitter. Forum 2020, 18, 389-413. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Duarte, J.L.; Crawford, J.T.; Stern, C.; Haidt, J.; Jussim, L.; Tetlock, P.E. Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behav. Brain Sci. 2015, 38, e130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Crawford, J.T.; Duarte, J.L.; Haidt, J.; Jussim, L.; Stern, C.; Tetlock, P.E. It may be harder than we thought, but political diversity will (still) improve social psychological science. Behav. Brain Sci. 2015, 38, e164. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Inbar, Y.; Lammers, J. Political diversity in social and personality psychology. SSRN Electron. J. 2012, 7, 496-503. [CrossRef] · DOI
- King, E.B.; Avery, D.R.; Hebl, M.R.; Cortina, J.M. Systematic subjectivity: How subtle biases infect the scholarship review process. J. Manag. 2017, 44, 843-853. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Eger, M.A. Even in Sweden: The effect of immigration on support for welfare state spending. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2009, 26, 203-217. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Graham, J.; Haidt, J.; Nosek, B.A. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Personal. Process. Individ. Differ. 2009, 96, 1029-1046. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
- Franks, A.S. Economic issues are moral issues 2: Attributing blame for inequality occurring in the United States versus foreign countries. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2020, 20, 7-25. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Franks, A.S.; Scherr, K.C. Using moral foundations to predict voting behavior: Regression models from the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2015, 15, 213-232. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Franks, A.S.; Scherr, K.C. Economic issues are moral issues: The moral underpinnings of the desire to reduce wealth inequality. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2018, 10, 553-562. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Franks, A.S.; Scherr, K.C. A sociofunctional approach to prejudice at the polls: Are atheists more politically disadvantaged than gays and Blacks? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 44, 681-691. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Abbott, D.; Franks, A.; Cook, C.; Mercier, C. (Non) Religious coping with a natural disaster in a rural US community. Secul. Nonreligion 2021, 10, 1-14. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Abbott, D.M.; Franks, A.S. Coping with COVID-19: An examination of the role of (non) religiousness/(non) spirituality. J. Relig. Health 2021, 60, 1-16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Franks, A.S.; Scherr, K.C.; Gibson, B. Godless by association: Deficits in trust mediate antiatheist stigma-by-association. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2019, 25, 303. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Combs, B.H. Black (and brown) bodies out of place: Towards a theoretical understanding of systematic voter suppression in the United States. Crit. Sociol. 2016, 42, 535-549. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Authors
- Franks, A. S., & Hesami, F.
- Affiliations
- Central Michigan University (US)
- Pacific Lutheran University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Franks, Andrew S.
- ORCID
- Franks, Andrew S.
- Venue
- Societies
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-09-18
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 113
- ISSN
- 2075-4698 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3200060451
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 1.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Societies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- Make America Great Again, Donald Trump, political favorability, source credibility, Trump supporters
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
