Identifying “types” of ideologies and intergroup biases: Advancing a person-centred approach to social psychology

IF 10.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1080/10463283.2017.1379265
D. Osborne, C. Sibley
{"title":"Identifying “types” of ideologies and intergroup biases: Advancing a person-centred approach to social psychology","authors":"D. Osborne, C. Sibley","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2017.1379265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Whether it be those who are “high” on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), or a mixture of “low” on explicit, but “high” on implicit, bias, many social psychological theories predict the existence of distinct “types” of people. These assumptions are, however, untestable using variable-centred analyses. Accordingly, we argue that the time has come to utilise person-centred analyses that enable us to test these key assumptions. We open by demonstrating how to implement – and interpret – latent profile analysis (a type of person-centred analysis), using RWA and SDO as an example. We then discuss the debate over the dimensionality of political ideology to highlight the need for person-centred analyses. Next, we review person-centred approaches to political ideology and highlight recent work using person-centred analyses to assess key assumptions of ambivalent sexism and relative deprivation. We conclude by discussing limitations to person-centred approaches and by providing suggestions for future research.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":"288 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10463283.2017.1379265","citationCount":"56","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2017.1379265","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56

Abstract

ABSTRACT Whether it be those who are “high” on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), or a mixture of “low” on explicit, but “high” on implicit, bias, many social psychological theories predict the existence of distinct “types” of people. These assumptions are, however, untestable using variable-centred analyses. Accordingly, we argue that the time has come to utilise person-centred analyses that enable us to test these key assumptions. We open by demonstrating how to implement – and interpret – latent profile analysis (a type of person-centred analysis), using RWA and SDO as an example. We then discuss the debate over the dimensionality of political ideology to highlight the need for person-centred analyses. Next, we review person-centred approaches to political ideology and highlight recent work using person-centred analyses to assess key assumptions of ambivalent sexism and relative deprivation. We conclude by discussing limitations to person-centred approaches and by providing suggestions for future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
识别意识形态和群体间偏见的“类型”:推进以人为中心的社会心理学方法
摘要无论是对右翼威权主义(RWA)和社会支配取向(SDO)持“高”态度的人,还是对显性“低”但对隐性“高”的混合偏见的人,许多社会心理学理论都预测了不同“类型”的人的存在。然而,使用以变量为中心的分析,这些假设是不稳定的。因此,我们认为,现在是时候利用以人为中心的分析,使我们能够检验这些关键假设了。我们以RWA和SDO为例,展示了如何实现和解释潜在概况分析(一种以人为中心的分析)。然后,我们讨论了关于政治意识形态维度的辩论,以强调以人为中心的分析的必要性。接下来,我们回顾了以人为中心的政治意识形态方法,并重点介绍了最近使用以人为中心分析来评估矛盾性别歧视和相对剥夺的关键假设的工作。最后,我们讨论了以人为中心的方法的局限性,并为未来的研究提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The "European Review of Social Psychology (ERSP)" is a distinguished international journal that operates under the patronage of the European Association of Social Psychology. It serves as a platform for comprehensive, theory-driven reviews that cover the broad spectrum of social psychology. The journal is open to submissions from authors worldwide and is guided by a prestigious international editorial board. ERSP is particularly interested in publishing reviews that reflect the author's own research program, as demonstrated by their publications in leading peer-reviewed journals. The journal values theoretical contributions that are grounded in a substantial empirical foundation, situating the research within the broader context of existing literature and offering a synthesis that goes beyond the individual articles. In addition to these in-depth reviews, ERSP also welcomes conventional reviews and meta-analyses, further enriching the journal's offerings. By focusing on high-quality, evidence-based research, ERSP contributes significantly to the advancement of knowledge in social psychology and fosters a deeper understanding of human social behavior across cultures and societies.
期刊最新文献
Narrative interventions in conflict settings: Harnessing the power of narratives to prevent violence and promote peace A multi-dimensional typology of allyship action in violent intergroup conflict settings: Differentiating actor, target, and type of action Foucault’s error: The power of not knowing The model of ambivalent choice and dissonant commitment: An integration of dissonance and ambivalence frameworks A theoretical analysis and empirical agenda for understanding the socioecology of adult attachment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1