Political disagreement in intergroup terms: Contextual variation and the influence of power

Lean O'BRIEN, Craig McGarty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In two studies we examined justificatory attributions made in the face of political
disagreement. Study 1 showed that Australian supporters and opponents of Australian involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq made stereotypical attributions that justified the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. Stereotypical attributions were consistent with the justification that the supporters of the war had been misled by dishonest political leaders. Study 2 replicated this pattern with supporters and opponents of Australia’s policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It also identified pragmatism as a dimension that dominant, government-aligned, groups may use to justify the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. In both studies political leaders were seen as more competent than members of the public. The results show the influence of intergroup power and within-group leader/supporter distinctions on people’s attributions about political disagreement. They point to the power of social psychological theory to help analyse important contemporary political concerns.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-98
Number of pages22
JournalBritish Journal of Social Psychology
Volume48
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Psychological Theory
Iraq
Refugees
Power (Psychology)
Warfare
Social Theory

Cite this

@article{e855ba0265244c948b234b236373d49f,
title = "Political disagreement in intergroup terms: Contextual variation and the influence of power",
abstract = "In two studies we examined justificatory attributions made in the face of politicaldisagreement. Study 1 showed that Australian supporters and opponents of Australian involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq made stereotypical attributions that justified the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. Stereotypical attributions were consistent with the justification that the supporters of the war had been misled by dishonest political leaders. Study 2 replicated this pattern with supporters and opponents of Australia’s policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It also identified pragmatism as a dimension that dominant, government-aligned, groups may use to justify the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. In both studies political leaders were seen as more competent than members of the public. The results show the influence of intergroup power and within-group leader/supporter distinctions on people’s attributions about political disagreement. They point to the power of social psychological theory to help analyse important contemporary political concerns.",
author = "Lean O'BRIEN and Craig McGarty",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1348/014466608X299717",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "77--98",
journal = "British Journal of Social Psychology",
issn = "0144-6665",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

Political disagreement in intergroup terms: Contextual variation and the influence of power. / O'BRIEN, Lean; McGarty, Craig.

In: British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 48, 2009, p. 77-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Political disagreement in intergroup terms: Contextual variation and the influence of power

AU - O'BRIEN, Lean

AU - McGarty, Craig

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - In two studies we examined justificatory attributions made in the face of politicaldisagreement. Study 1 showed that Australian supporters and opponents of Australian involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq made stereotypical attributions that justified the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. Stereotypical attributions were consistent with the justification that the supporters of the war had been misled by dishonest political leaders. Study 2 replicated this pattern with supporters and opponents of Australia’s policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It also identified pragmatism as a dimension that dominant, government-aligned, groups may use to justify the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. In both studies political leaders were seen as more competent than members of the public. The results show the influence of intergroup power and within-group leader/supporter distinctions on people’s attributions about political disagreement. They point to the power of social psychological theory to help analyse important contemporary political concerns.

AB - In two studies we examined justificatory attributions made in the face of politicaldisagreement. Study 1 showed that Australian supporters and opponents of Australian involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq made stereotypical attributions that justified the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. Stereotypical attributions were consistent with the justification that the supporters of the war had been misled by dishonest political leaders. Study 2 replicated this pattern with supporters and opponents of Australia’s policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It also identified pragmatism as a dimension that dominant, government-aligned, groups may use to justify the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. In both studies political leaders were seen as more competent than members of the public. The results show the influence of intergroup power and within-group leader/supporter distinctions on people’s attributions about political disagreement. They point to the power of social psychological theory to help analyse important contemporary political concerns.

U2 - 10.1348/014466608X299717

DO - 10.1348/014466608X299717

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 77

EP - 98

JO - British Journal of Social Psychology

JF - British Journal of Social Psychology

SN - 0144-6665

ER -