Political disagreement in intergroup terms: contextual variation and the influence of power
Obrien, L.V. and McGarty, C. (2009) Political disagreement in intergroup terms: contextual variation and the influence of power. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48 (1). pp. 77-98.
*Subscription may be required
In two studies we examined justificatory 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.
|Publication Type:||Journal Article|
|Murdoch Affiliation:||School of Psychology|
|Publisher:||The British Psychological Society|
|Copyright:||The British Psychological Society|
|Item Control Page|