Expressive Responding in Support of Donald Trump: An Extended Replication of Schaffner and Luks (2018)

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Collabra-Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1525/collabra.68054
R. M. Ross, Neil Levy
{"title":"Expressive Responding in Support of Donald Trump: An Extended Replication of Schaffner and Luks (2018)","authors":"R. M. Ross, Neil Levy","doi":"10.1525/collabra.68054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is considerable debate about whether survey respondents regularly engage in “expressive responding” – professing to believe something that they do not sincerely believe to show support for their in-group or hostility to an out-group. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that one study provides compelling evidence for a consequential level of expressive responding in a particular context. In the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally there was considerable controversy about whether this inauguration crowd was the largest ever. At this time, a study was conducted which found that Donald Trump voters were more likely than Hillary Clinton voters or non-voters to indicate that an unlabeled photo of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally showed more people than an unlabeled photo of Barack Obama’s 2009 presidential inauguration rally, despite the latter photo clearly showing more people. However, this study was not pre-registered, suggesting that a replication is needed to establish the robustness of this important result. In the present study, we conducted an extended replication over two years after Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration rally. We found that despite this delay the original result replicated, albeit with a smaller magnitude. In addition, we extended the earlier study by testing several hypotheses about the characteristics of Republicans who selected the incorrect photo.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.68054","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

There is considerable debate about whether survey respondents regularly engage in “expressive responding” – professing to believe something that they do not sincerely believe to show support for their in-group or hostility to an out-group. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that one study provides compelling evidence for a consequential level of expressive responding in a particular context. In the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally there was considerable controversy about whether this inauguration crowd was the largest ever. At this time, a study was conducted which found that Donald Trump voters were more likely than Hillary Clinton voters or non-voters to indicate that an unlabeled photo of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally showed more people than an unlabeled photo of Barack Obama’s 2009 presidential inauguration rally, despite the latter photo clearly showing more people. However, this study was not pre-registered, suggesting that a replication is needed to establish the robustness of this important result. In the present study, we conducted an extended replication over two years after Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration rally. We found that despite this delay the original result replicated, albeit with a smaller magnitude. In addition, we extended the earlier study by testing several hypotheses about the characteristics of Republicans who selected the incorrect photo.
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
支持唐纳德·特朗普的表达性回应:Schaffner和Luks的扩展复制(2018)
关于调查对象是否经常参与“表达性回应”——声称相信一些他们并不真正相信的事情,以表示对他们内部群体的支持或对外部群体的敌意——存在相当大的争论。尽管如此,人们普遍认为,一项研究提供了令人信服的证据,证明在特定情境下表达性反应的结果水平。在唐纳德·特朗普2017年总统就职集会结束后不久,关于这次就职集会的人数是否是有史以来最大的,引发了相当大的争议。与此同时,一项研究发现,唐纳德·特朗普的选民比希拉里·克林顿的选民或非选民更有可能指出,唐纳德·特朗普2017年总统就职集会的未标记照片比巴拉克·奥巴马2009年总统就职集会的未标记照片显示的人更多,尽管后者的照片明显显示的人更多。然而,这项研究没有预先注册,这表明需要一个复制来建立这一重要结果的稳健性。在本研究中,我们在唐纳德·特朗普总统就职集会后的两年多时间里进行了延长的复制。我们发现,尽管有这一延迟,原始结果还是得到了复制,尽管幅度较小。此外,我们扩展了先前的研究,测试了几个关于选择错误照片的共和党人特征的假设。
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
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
期刊最新文献
Characterizing Human Habits in the Lab. Breaking Ban: Belgium’s Ineffective Gambling Law Regulation of Video Game Loot Boxes Revisiting the Differential Centrality of Experiential and Material Purchases to the Self: Replication and Extension of Carter and Gilovich (2012) Cyberloafing: Investigating the Importance and Implications of New and Known Predictors Psychometric Properties of the Chilean Version of the Oviedo Grit Scale
×
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