My research related to political reasoning is best organized into a couple of different sections: (a) how terrorist attacks, and more specifically, September 11, 2001, affected politically relevant attitudes, and (b) a program of research devoted to understanding the psychological underpinnings of the left-right political divide.
REACTIONS TO SEPTEMBER 11
Skitka, L. J., Saunders, B., Morgan, G. S., & Wisneski, D. (under review). Dark clouds and silver linings: Socio-psychological responses to September 11, 2001.
There is clear evidence that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon had both immediate and long-term effects on the American psyche. Some of the psychological consequences of the attacks were transparently hostile, negative, and defensive. Americans became more willing to sacrifice necessary cornerstones of freedom, that is, by becoming willing to restrict both their own and others' civil liberties, and often worse. However, September 11 not only motivated political intolerance and hate, it also motivated many Americans to react with group and value affirming responses. For example, Americans donated blood, gave money and time to charity, and started organizations such as My Good Deed, a group committed to "changing the world, one good deed at a time" as a memorial to the victims of September 11. This article reviews how the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon brought out some of the best and worst in Americans, and provides a psychological account for both reactions. We first review evidence of increased levels of political intolerance, prejudice and discrimination, hate crimes, and desires for vengeance. We then review evidence that Americans also responded with unprecedented levels of giving, as well as other attempts to reaffirm their commitments to fundamental standards of cultural value. Finally, we discuss some of the implications of this research for how people might best channel their responses when confronted with threats like terrorist attacks in the future.
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., Aramovich, N. P., & Morgan, G. C. (2006). Confrontational and preventative policy responses to terrorism: Anger wants a fight and fear wants "them" to go away. Basic and Applied Social Psychlogy, 28, 1995 - 2011.
This study used a nationally representative sample (N = 550) to test factors that predicted support for a confrontational (an expanded war on terror) and a defensive public policy (deporting various groups symbolically associated with the attackers) shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Results indicated that anger but not fear predicted support for expanding the war beyond Afghanistan, and fear but not anger predicted support for deporting Arab Americans, Muslims, and first generation immigrants. Political orientation was weakly or not correlated with affective reactions and policy preferences, but Right-Wing-Authoritarianism (RWA) was a strong predictor of both. RWA had a direct and indirect effect through anger on support for war, and a direct and indirect effect through fear on support for deportation. Implications are discussed.
Skitka, L. J., (2005). Patriotism or nationalism? Understanding post-September 11, 2001 flag display behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1995 - 2011.
People reacted to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in a number of different ways. One reaction was to display the American flag on one's home, car, or person. The goal of this research was to understand the underlying motivations that led to this widespread behavior. Specifically, to what extent was post 9-11 flag display behavior motivated by patriotism (love of country and in-group solidarity), nationalism (uncritical acceptance of national, state, and political authorities and out-group antipathy), or a combination of both? Results of a national survey (N = 605) provided much stronger support for the hypothesis that post-9/11 flag display behavior was an expression of patriotism, not nationalism. Other results supported the notion that patriotism can exist without nationalism even in the context of people's reactions to a terrorist attack.
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2004). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following September 11, 2001: An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 743 - 756.
This study tested hypotheses generated from the contemporary judgment model, intergroup emotion theory, and worldview maintenance theories (e.g., terror management and value protection) to explain political tolerance following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A national field study (N = 550) found that immediate post-attack anger and fear had different implications for political tolerance four months later, and that an integrative model provided a better account for the data than any single approach did alone. The effects of anger on political tolerance were mediated through moral outrage and out-group derogation, whereas the effects of fear on political tolerance were mediated through personal threat, in-group enhancement, and value affirmation. Value affirmation led to increased, whereas moral outrage, out-group derogation, in-group enhancement, and personal threat led to decreased, political tolerance. Value affirmation, moral outrage, and out-group derogation also facilitated post-9/11 psychological closure; increased psychological closure led to greater political tolerance.
EXPLORING THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LEFT-RIGHT POLITICAL DIVIDE
Morgan, G. S., Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (work in progress). Stable individual difference in cognitive style or motivated reasoning? Understanding the left-right political divide.
One of the most frequently replicated findings of research on political orientation is that conservatives tend to make dispositional, whereas liberals make situational, attributions for social problems. The "ideo-attribution effect" is consistent with theories that argue that political orientations are rooted in stable individual differences in the cognitive perspectives of liberals and conservatives. According to this point of view, liberals and conservatives see the world through difference colored glasses, something that should be stable across time and context. However, the ideo-attribution effect is also consistent with an alternative theoretical perspective that suggests that the effect is a motivated response, and one that can vary across contexts if the motivational priorities of liberals and conservatives similarly shift. Results of two studies supported the motivated cognition hypothesis. Specifically, when situationally salient values provided appropriate motivation, conservatives were more likely than liberals to make situational attributions for targets' behavior.
Skitka, L. J., & Bauman, C. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29, 29 - 54.
The 2004 presidential election led to considerable discussion about whether moral values motivated people to vote, and if so, whether it led to a conservative electoral advantage. The results of two studies-one conducted in the context of the 2000 presidential election, the other in the context of the 2004 presidential election-indicated that stronger moral convictions associated with candidates themselves and attitudes on issues of the day uniquely predicted self-reported voting behavior and intentions to vote even when controlling for a host of alternative explanations (e.g., attitude strength, strength of party identification). In addition, we found strong support for the hypothesis that moral convictions equally motivated political engagement for those on the political right and left and little support for the notion that a combination of morality and politics is something more characteristic of the political right than it is of the political left.
Mullen, E., Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2003). Avoiding the pitfalls of politicized psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 171-176.
This article provides two arguments for using caution when interpreting the results
of a Global Change Game simulation indicating that people high in right-wing
authoritarianism are particularly likely to bring the world to ruin. First, we review
research that demonstrates that extremists on both the political left and right share
characteristics likely to be associated with poor performance in the Global Change
Game (e.g., lower levels of integrative complexity) and that there are reasons to
be cautious about letting political extremists on either the left or right inherit the
earth. Second, we caution that political psychologists need to be aware of how
their own values shape the types of research they conduct and the inferences they
draw from that research and that the same results can be construed very differently
depending on the lens through which they are viewed.
Skitka, L. J., Mullen, E., Griffin, T., Hutchinson, S., & Chamberlin, B. (2002). Dispositions, ideological scripts, or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in attributions for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 470-487.
Research has consistently found that liberals and conservatives generate different attributions for the causes of social problems, and respond differently to people described as having internal-controllable causes for needing help. Five studies explored 3 explanations for these robust and well-replicated findings. Specifically, we explored whether these differences could be explained by (a) underlying dispositional differences in the tendency to see the causes of behavior as personally or situationally located, (b) people's reliance on well-rehearsed ideological scripts, or (c) differences in the motivation to correct personal attributions in contexts where these differences have been observed. Results were most consistent with a motivated correction explanation. The findings shed further light on the cognitive strategies and motivational priorities of liberals and conservatives.
.
Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1205 - 1223.
Previous research in a wide varity of policy domains (e.g., AZT for AIDS patients, low-income housing for the poor) has indicated that under no scarcity, liberals tend to help all claimants for assistance from people who are personally responsible for their predicament (Skitka & Tetlock, 1992). Three studies explore 6 explanations for this robust finding: deterrence, self-interest, punitiveness, mindlessness, value orientation, and avoidance of trade-off reasoning. The findings shed light on both the cognitive strategies and motivational priorities of liberals and conservatives. It was discovered that liberals are not mindlessly egalitarian, but try to avoid socially awkward value trade-offs that require placing monetary values on lives. By contrast, conservatives are motivated to punish violators of social norms (e.g., deviations from traditional norms of sexuality or responsible behavior) and to deter free riders.
