Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:10AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:10AM (#606651)

    To be clear: You're talking about a plurality of those who cast a ballot.

    Among those USAians registered to vote:
    ~29 percent - Clinton
    ~28 percent - Trump
      ~1 percent - a 3rd-party candidate
    ~42 percent - None of the above (Didn't cast a ballot)

    1) The Big 2 offered the worst nominees from among their party's members.

    2) Lamestream Media focused on everything that was NOT important to Joe Average--meaningless crap and not the issues (the horse race and not the track conditions).

    They completely aced-out anyone but the Big 2's nominees.
    N.B. A reminder here that the people of the USA own the broadcast spectrum.

    Corporate media didn't analyze every lie from every candidate as those occurred.
    (Comedians was where to find that analysis.)

    In particular, they didn't mention Trump's bizarre personality and mention that the president has access to launch codes for nuclear weapons.

    CBS's CEO even said out loud that Trump was crap for the nation but good for his company's profits.

    The Media was also monstrously inaccurate with their polling.

    -- OriginalOwner_ []

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 07 2017, @11:58AM

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday December 07 2017, @11:58AM (#606771) Homepage
    I am a firm believer that every election which intends to call itself democratic should (after doing its utmost to ensure everyone who may vote can vote) treat, *and announce*, every non-cast vote (and every deliberately spoilt paper) as "None of the above".

    Of course, in order to get anything done, they'd have to be awarding control to a lot of 2nd place candidates, it's just the pretence of majority representation I want them to drop.

    Thanks for posting the real US2016 figures (though an extra decimal place would have been nice ;-) )
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves