Logo image
Political disagreement in intergroup terms: contextual variation and the influence of power
Journal article   Peer reviewed

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

L.V. Obrien and C. McGarty
British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.48(1), pp.77-98
2009
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

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.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#10 Reduced Inequalities

Source: InCites

Metrics

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Citation topics
6 Social Sciences
6.73 Social Psychology
6.73.447 Racial Identity
Web Of Science research areas
Psychology, Social
ESI research areas
Psychiatry/Psychology
Logo image