Why American conservatives and individuals from traditionalist cultures may share a preference for group uniformity

被引:6
作者
Bettache, Karim [1 ]
Chiu, Chi-yue [2 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Dept Psychol, Sunway City, Malaysia
[2] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Fac Social Sci, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
autonomy; collectivism; conservatism; India; tightness; USA; POLITICAL CONSERVATISM; DISGUST SENSITIVITY; VALUES;
D O I
10.1111/ajsp.12356
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
American culture is known for its emphasis on freedom-promoting values such as self-determination and autonomy. Yet, a large segment of American society endorses a conservative ideology that seems to go against these values. In this article, we empirically show that conservatives' weaker endorsement of autonomy values predicts a preference to be an amorphous entity in a tight, uniform group (Study 1A). We do so by implementing a novel measure of sociocultural tightness that is not based on self-report items. We subsequently show that cultural (East-West) differences in this preference can be explained through a similar mechanism (Study 1B). Hence, we show that some cognitive processes of American conservatives are similar to those of individuals coming from more collectivist, non-Western societies.
引用
收藏
页码:325 / 330
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] The other "authoritarian personality"
    Altemeyer, B
    [J]. ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL 30, 1998, 30 : 47 - 92
  • [2] Values and voting
    Barnea, MF
    Schwartz, SH
    [J]. POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 19 (01) : 17 - 40
  • [3] The populist effect: Threat and the handover of freedom
    Bettache, Karim
    Chiu, Chi-yue
    [J]. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2018, 130 : 102 - 106
  • [4] Burke Edmund., 1834, WORKS E BURKE
  • [5] Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism
    Fincher, Corey L.
    Thornhill, Randy
    Murray, Damian R.
    Schaller, Mark
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2008, 275 (1640) : 1279 - 1285
  • [6] Gelfand M.J., 2004, CULTURE LEADERSHIP O
  • [7] On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness
    Gelfand, Michele J.
    Nishii, Lisa H.
    Raver, Jana L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 91 (06) : 1225 - 1244
  • [8] Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study
    Gelfand, Michele J.
    Raver, Jana L.
    Nishii, Lisa
    Leslie, Lisa M.
    Lun, Janetta
    Lim, Beng Chong
    Duan, Lili
    Almaliach, Assaf
    Ang, Soon
    Arnadottir, Jakobina
    Aycan, Zeynep
    Boehnke, Klaus
    Boski, Pawel
    Cabecinhas, Rosa
    Chan, Darius
    Chhokar, Jagdeep
    D'Amato, Alessia
    Ferrer, Montse
    Fischlmayr, Iris C.
    Fischer, Ronald
    Fueloep, Marta
    Georgas, James
    Kashima, Emiko S.
    Kashima, Yoshishima
    Kim, Kibum
    Lempereur, Alain
    Marquez, Patricia
    Othman, Rozhan
    Overlaet, Bert
    Panagiotopoulou, Penny
    Peltzer, Karl
    Perez-Florizno, Lorena R.
    Ponomarenko, Larisa
    Realo, Anu
    Schei, Vidar
    Schmitt, Manfred
    Smith, Peter B.
    Soomro, Nazar
    Szabo, Erna
    Taveesin, Nalinee
    Toyama, Midori
    Van de Vliert, Evert
    Vohra, Naharika
    Ward, Colleen
    Yamaguchi, Susumu
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2011, 332 (6033) : 1100 - 1104
  • [9] Functional relationships in the nuclear and extended family:: A 16-culture study
    Georgas, J
    Mylonas, K
    Bafiti, T
    Poortinga, YH
    Christakopoulou, S
    Kagitcibasi, C
    Kwak, K
    Ataca, B
    Berry, J
    Orung, S
    Sunar, D
    Charalambous, N
    Goodwin, R
    Wang, WZ
    Angleitner, A
    Stepanikova, I
    Pick, S
    Givaudan, M
    Zhuravliova-Gionis, I
    Konantambigi, R
    Gelfand, MJ
    Marinova, V
    McBride-Chang, C
    Kodiç, Y
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 36 (05) : 289 - 300
  • [10] Mapping the Moral Domain
    Graham, Jesse
    Nosek, Brian A.
    Haidt, Jonathan
    Iyer, Ravi
    Koleva, Spassena
    Ditto, Peter H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2011, 101 (02) : 366 - 385