Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T22:12:46.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context, engagement, and the (multiple) functions of negativity bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

Christopher M. Federico ,
Christopher D. Johnston  and
Howard G. Lavine
Christopher M. Federico
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. [email protected]://www.psych.umn.edu/people/facultyprofile.php?UID=federico
Christopher D. Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0204. [email protected]://sites.duke.edu/chrisjohnston/
Howard G. Lavine
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. [email protected]://www.polisci.umn.edu/people/profile.php?UID=lavine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hibbing and colleagues argue that political attitudes may be rooted in individual differences in negativity bias. Here, we highlight the complex, conditional nature of the relationship between negativity bias and ideology by arguing that the political impact of negativity bias should vary as a function of (1) issue domain and (2) political engagement.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 311 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carmines, E. G. & Stimson, J. A. (1980) The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review 74:78–91.Google Scholar
Federico, C. M., Fisher, E. L. & Deason, G. (2011) Political expertise and the link between the authoritarian predisposition and conservatism. Public Opinion Quarterly 75:686–708.Google Scholar
Federico, C. M. & Goren, P. (2009) Motivated social cognition and ideology: Is attention to elite discourse a prerequisite for epistemically motivated political affinities? In: Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification, ed. Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C. & Thorisdottir, H., pp. 267–91. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. & Weiler, J. D. (2009) Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, T. (2005) Capitalism, democracy, and welfare. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, C. D. (2011) The motivated formation of economic preferences. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3474556).Google Scholar
Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H. G, & Federico, C. M. (2014) Cultural economics: The political psychology of economic preference formation in a polarized America. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 4, 2014..Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992) The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar