Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
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This discussion has been archived.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.
1 2 (3)
  • (Score: 5, Disagree) by Fishscene on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:48PM (7 children)

    by Fishscene (4361) on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:48PM (#606802)

    I didn't come to Soylent News so I could read articles like this. Trump is our President, the Hillary supporters lost. Deal with it. Get over yourself. Stop this stupid nonsense trying to put down your fellow man as "less educated" and "prejudice". This isn't the first time a side has lost. In fact, it happens EVERY election. But this article is straight up wrong.
    Just for Science, and to demonstrate how wrong this article is, let's replace "Trump Supporters" with some hot-button "types" of folks and see how well it might go over with readers:
    ---
            The Black 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 female nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of Black Supporters 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 Black 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.
    ---
            The White 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 female nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of White Supporters 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 White 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.
    ------------------------

    This is how divisive and back-water this article appears to me. Just... stop.
           

    --
    I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:13PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:13PM (#606872)

      Cute copypasta but what is your point? Where is your article? Did it get peer reviewed? Published?

      And as you can read in the article, this is not just about Trump lovers but such people all over the world. Science is still science if it upsets you. You deal with it.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fishscene on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:18PM (2 children)

        by Fishscene (4361) on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:18PM (#606916)

        1) Please post under your account name, like I did. Put your name to your words.
        2) My point is clear: You can replace (group of people) with another group and suddenly it sounds like hatred, bigotry, racist, etc... It's an article NO ONE would have published if they didn't want the Internet to absolutely nuts. But because it's "Trump Supporters" and "male", it's suddenly ok? NO.
        3) You don't call millions of people the kinds of things this article calls them and expect me NOT to call out the article and the submitter here on Soylent.
        4) Republicans ARE NOT the answer to everything. Democrats ARE NOT the answer to everything. Same with any political group - Especially in the United States.
        5) The article is more madness and opinion than Science. When was the last time Science belittled (group of people)? I'd wager the best examples were shortly followed by some of the worst acts in human history. I'm talking Slavery in the United States, Germany and the Jews around WWII, etc...

        So no. I won't be complicit and sit by while madness like this article gets scattered around.

        --
        I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:17PM (#606950)

          Your search/replace does not work. Why? Because the details of those groups vary. This IS science, the fuzzy social science stuff. Not 100% accurate and reliable like electron counters and precision scales. Studying the factors behind populist movements seems like a very worthy pursuit, perhaps in the future we can recognize when dissatisfaction is growing and start fixing problems before they blow up.

          Article is not madness, that is simply what it generated in you.

        • (Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:27PM

          by gottabeme (1531) on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:27PM (#606977)

          Don't waste your virtual breath responding to trolls like that. What they hate most is being ignored, because it demonstrates how irrelevant they are.

    • (Score: 2, Troll) by gottabeme on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:25PM

      by gottabeme (1531) on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:25PM (#606975)

      Hear, hear. Sick of this clickbait, self-congratulatory, "I'm thankful that we're not as stupid as THEY are" garbage.

      The people who honestly believe that (not sure how many actually do, vs. how many say so) are literally delusional, thinking that everyone who disagrees with them is the embodiment of evil and stupidity, except for those who are just ignorant--if only they'd watch the same TV and read the same web sites they do, then they'd understand!

      Surely it is the hallmark of a dying political movement when one refuses to learn from its failures and doubles down instead. "Double-deplorable" isn't going to win in 2020.

      Spare us all. Keep this stuff off Soylent.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by meustrus on Thursday December 07 2017, @10:47PM

      by meustrus (4961) on Thursday December 07 2017, @10:47PM (#607024)

      Your science stinks, but there is a useful point in a response [soylentnews.org]:

      You can replace (group of people) with another group and suddenly it sounds like hatred, bigotry, racist, etc... It's an article NO ONE would have published if they didn't want the Internet to absolutely nuts. But because it's "Trump Supporters" and "male", it's suddenly ok? NO.

      Your copypasta doesn't sound like "hatred, bigotry, racist, etc." because it's utterly incoherent. But that doesn't mean somebody else couldn't have made a coherent example. There are many real examples, however, of such sociology [wikipedia.org].

      Yes, the white male Trump supporter is a uniquely acceptable target for bigotry right now. But that's because all other targets have become unacceptable, and white males are still socially dominant in the US. It's a good time for us all to start thinking of them as a minority, however. The legal arguments around the anti-gay baker case show that evangelicals at least are beginning to accept that their power over the rest of us is waning, leaving only individual liberty for them to maintain. The white male, the rural class, and the intersection thereof is figuring it out too.

      The main thing standing in the way of the white male's acceptance into the diverse range of minorities is their belief in their own exceptionalism. When it erodes, I expect we will see a slow death of anti-PC rhetoric as those people start insisting that articles like this stop targeting them. If not, the white male may end up the target of more serious retribution as the former targets of prejudice will not be willing to hear calls for tolerance from the intolerant.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:18AM (#607100)

      Trump is our President,

      WTF are you, an American? Not my president. Thank FSM.

  • (Score: 2, Troll) by arcz on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:23PM (3 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:23PM (#606849) Journal

    Seriously what the fuck is this.
    This article is more offensive than "white supremacists" are. Unless you're a hillary supporter, of course.
    Look at this:
    "authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation."
    Since when is Donald Trump "authoritarian"? I mean, just because he's not doing what you want, does not make him or his supporters any more authoritarian than yours. Social dominance orientation means whatever you want it to mean here. The dems aren't "social dominance" because when government does it, then it doesn't count! Yeah no, I call bullshit.

    Let's look at the real villians here: Academics.

    • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:21PM (#606953)

      Nice troll post, almost got me!

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by meustrus on Thursday December 07 2017, @10:24PM (1 child)

      by meustrus (4961) on Thursday December 07 2017, @10:24PM (#607016)

      Words in this context have specific meanings. These are personality traits regardless of political analysis.

      Authoritarian [theauthoritarians.org] roughly means that the person places a high degree of trust in traditional authority figures. The linked book shows that this is a reliably identifiable personality trait with strong correlations to some of the other traits mentioned here.

      Authoritarian followers tend not to follow other authoritarian followers. Rather, because they grant trust based on traditional authority and it's rather easy for someone to align themselves with such authority (patriotism is a great shortcut, as is religious affiliation and the endorsements of preexisting authority figures), authoritarian followers are more easily manipulated into supporting dishonest politicians. This is not necessarily all of Trump's supporters, but it does explain the people that honestly believed he would "drain the swamp" and stem the tide of jobs leaving America.

      Social dominance orientation [wikipedia.org] roughly means that the person prefers organizations with strong power imbalances to organizations where all participants have more equal power levels. It is more common among people who benefit from their role within the organization, such as upper management, or in society at large, the wealthy (relative to the poor) or poor whites (relative to poor non-whites).

      Social dominance orientation is about a person's individual social dominance, not about the likelihood that their desires will be reflected in society. They want government to reinforce their social dominance. The opposite is collective consensus, which can also result in government reinforcing a way of being. The specifics depend on the policy. SDOs would support discriminatory laws like Jim Crow, but would oppose regulations that disproportionately affect the powerful, like Dodd-Frank. This again is not necessarily all of Trump's supporters, but it does explain the people that voted for him based on the likelihood he would cut taxes for the rich (as he is currently doing) or because of his racist rhetoric.

      I shouldn't have to explain "outgroup prejudice". Trump's prejudice against immigrants and Muslims is his most straight-forward policy (even though he still hasn't delivered his wall). But again, this is not necessarily all of Trump's supporters, although they all have to at least tolerate these policies.

      "Absense of intergroup contact" refers to the Contact hypothesis [wikipedia.org]. Under this interpretation, a lack of intergroup contact suggests less willingness to make compromises for the benefit of other groups. These people are less likely to understand the nuanced needs of other groups and are more likely to characterize them with straw man arguments. TFA suggests this factor compounds existing outgroup prejudice and SDO to allow normally good people to support unkind and even vicious treatment of otherwise undesired groups.

      "Relative deprivation" is not actually a personality trait, referring to economic deprivation. More deprived individuals are more likely to favor change. This explains the segment of Trump voters that also voted for Obama twice - both candidates represented change in Washington.

      ---

      None of these traits are unique to Trump supporters. Authoritarianism and SDO are prevalent in the Democratic establishment, particularly those that actually preferred Hillary over the primary alternatives. Outgroup prejudice is prevalent among more militant feminists. Absense of intergroup contact is a growing factor of concern across party lines, affected by the increasing degree to which our information is filtered out to only include things that we would find personally interesting; in other words, it is prevalent everywhere, especially on the internet, and especially among isolated groups (including those with little or no internet access). And economically deprived individuals have been voting for change since voting began, regardless of whether the change is from left to right or from right to left.

      TFA makes the case that a unique combination of these traits led to Trump's election. We shouldn't discount the possibility that he was shrewd enough to deliberately go after these aspects of the human personality; in fact, politicians do exactly that all the time.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:35PM (#607282)

        Wow, this should be informative. I guess whoever modded you flamebait missed the part where you said these traits exist in liberals as well. Lawl, reading comprehension ftw again!

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:30PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:30PM (#607003)

    Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology

    Its important to point out that per

    https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans [newyorker.com]

    psychology is one of the most poltically biased fields out there, with a ratio of 14:1 or so in favor of D party.

    Also the field as a scientific whole was repeatedly abused in the past by the Russians, political opponents diagnosed as insane and involuntarily committed for "treatment", etc, all of which is coming soon to the USA.

    Its surprising given the solidarity and groupthink in the field, that the article description of Trump supporters was not even more unflattering.

1 2 (3)