Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:33PM (#606820) Journal

    You're slowly catching on. The popular vote never did guarantee the election. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. The republic has set things up so that it can trump the popular vote if and when it decides to. But, that's all beside the point. Hillary wasn't the popular choice, any more than Trump was. MOST PEOPLE COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO VOTE!! Only a tiny bit more than half the eligible voters cared enough to vote. Do you call that "popular"?

    Let's try one more approach. Two losers had a race, and you don't like the fact that one loser won over the other loser. WHAT DOES IT MATTER???? IT WAS TWO LOSERS!!! Get a grip.

    When you're ready to express outrage that Bernie was bent over a barrel and raped hard, let me know.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:39PM (#606932)

    So your initial point was clearly shot down along with the #fakenews factoids you tried to slip in and what? You move the goal posts and throw in some stupidity? It matters to many people how the country decided to put that idiot in charge. At the very least HRC would have been a politically competent sleaze bag, it is clear at this point that Trump is all about the swamp and in no way desires draining it.

    It is really weird seeing supposedly intelligent people suck their own thumbs when their ideologies are impacted. So many of the prolific conservative posters here have repeatedly been shown to be intellectually bankrupt, thanks for the reminder that your opinions should be handled with a hazmat suit.