特朗普选民在美国社会中的社会地位:独特性和激进右翼支持

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1111/pops.12984
P. L. Versteegen
{"title":"特朗普选民在美国社会中的社会地位:独特性和激进右翼支持","authors":"P. L. Versteegen","doi":"10.1111/pops.12984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research portrays radical‐right voters as economically, geographically, or politically marginalized. However, it seems implausible that these self‐perceived ordinary people—often overrepresenting historically powerful majorities (Whites, men, Christians)—are also socially marginalized. In the present article, I theorize why they may still feel socially excluded: Optimal distinctiveness research posits that individuals feel included in society if they experience (1) belonging to it and (2) uniqueness within it (i.e., feel their background is recognized). I argue that historical power and self‐perceived ordinariness satisfy most majority members' belonging need, but recent diversification and liberalization leave their uniqueness need unsatisfied. Indeed, cluster analyses of American National Election Studies (ANES) data show that a substantial share of majority members experiences firm belonging to society but lacks uniqueness therein. This group is more likely to support Trump than individuals whose needs are satisfied. This article contributes a social‐inclusion perspective on radical‐right voters' position in society.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trump Voters' social position in U.S. Society: Uniqueness and radical‐right support\",\"authors\":\"P. L. Versteegen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pops.12984\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous research portrays radical‐right voters as economically, geographically, or politically marginalized. However, it seems implausible that these self‐perceived ordinary people—often overrepresenting historically powerful majorities (Whites, men, Christians)—are also socially marginalized. In the present article, I theorize why they may still feel socially excluded: Optimal distinctiveness research posits that individuals feel included in society if they experience (1) belonging to it and (2) uniqueness within it (i.e., feel their background is recognized). I argue that historical power and self‐perceived ordinariness satisfy most majority members' belonging need, but recent diversification and liberalization leave their uniqueness need unsatisfied. Indeed, cluster analyses of American National Election Studies (ANES) data show that a substantial share of majority members experiences firm belonging to society but lacks uniqueness therein. This group is more likely to support Trump than individuals whose needs are satisfied. This article contributes a social‐inclusion perspective on radical‐right voters' position in society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12984\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12984","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的研究将激进右翼选民描绘成经济、地理或政治上的边缘人。然而,这些自认为是普通人的人--往往代表了历史上强大的多数群体(白人、男性、基督徒)--也被社会边缘化了,这似乎难以置信。在本文中,我将从理论上解释为什么他们仍会感到被社会排斥:最佳独特性研究认为,如果个人体验到(1)社会归属感和(2)社会独特性(即感觉自己的背景得到认可),他们就会觉得自己被社会包容了。我认为,历史权力和自我感觉的平凡满足了大多数多数成员的归属需求,但最近的多样化和自由化却没有满足他们的独特性需求。事实上,对美国全国选举研究(ANES)数据的聚类分析显示,相当一部分多数派成员对社会有坚定的归属感,但缺乏独特性。与需求得到满足的个人相比,这一群体更有可能支持特朗普。本文从社会包容的角度对激进右翼选民的社会地位进行了分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Trump Voters' social position in U.S. Society: Uniqueness and radical‐right support
Previous research portrays radical‐right voters as economically, geographically, or politically marginalized. However, it seems implausible that these self‐perceived ordinary people—often overrepresenting historically powerful majorities (Whites, men, Christians)—are also socially marginalized. In the present article, I theorize why they may still feel socially excluded: Optimal distinctiveness research posits that individuals feel included in society if they experience (1) belonging to it and (2) uniqueness within it (i.e., feel their background is recognized). I argue that historical power and self‐perceived ordinariness satisfy most majority members' belonging need, but recent diversification and liberalization leave their uniqueness need unsatisfied. Indeed, cluster analyses of American National Election Studies (ANES) data show that a substantial share of majority members experiences firm belonging to society but lacks uniqueness therein. This group is more likely to support Trump than individuals whose needs are satisfied. This article contributes a social‐inclusion perspective on radical‐right voters' position in society.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
When saying sorry is not enough: The paradox of a political apology offered to Irish mother and baby home survivors Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false Dealing with uncertainty and cognitive biases in international politics Overcoming (vegan) burnout: Mass gatherings can provide respite and rekindle shared identity and social action efforts in moralized minority groups Perceived threat, compassion, and public evaluations toward refugees
×
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