当前位置: X-MOL 学术Psychol. Inq. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Paradox of the Tribal Equalitarian
Psychological Inquiry ( IF 5.581 ) Pub Date : 2020-01-02 , DOI: 10.1080/1047840x.2020.1722018
Lucian Gideon Conway 1 , Alivia Zubrod 1 , Linus Chan 1
Affiliation  

As Clark and Winegard (this issue) comprehensively demonstrate, tribal psychology is universal. It knows no ideological boundaries. Yes, tribalism-based epistemological group biases occur for conservatives and religious persons; but these same biases also occur for liberals and atheists. The statement hardly seems controversial, and yet the idea that liberals show group biases does not appear (to us) to have been received with quite the same enthusiasm as research suggesting that conservatives have such biases. It is, in one sense, curious that social psychologists should be reticent to discover that tribalism applies to our own normative ingroups. After all, we are the ones who have been largely responsible for proclaiming the power of group biases to modern culture. Why should we be so surprised to find those same biases inside our own metaphorical house? Clark and Winegard’s much-needed analysis provides a clue to the answer. They argue that (1) liberal social psychologists are subject to the same tribal biases as conservatives, and (2) liberal social psychologists hold a sacred equalitarian value set that makes them highly motivated to minimize group differences. Importantly, considering both arguments in tandem raises the possibility that social psychologists are especially motivated to believe that our group is better than other groups on equalitarian dimensions. Indeed, inherent in Clark and Winegard’s analysis is the fact that tribal ingroup biases can actually clash with existing tribally-held values. The combination of tribalism-based ingroup biases (wanting to believe one’s group is better than other groups on cherished sacred value sets) and the equalitarian tribal value (a general aversion to negative group-based characterizations) puts the modern liberal in an almost paradoxical position (see, e.g., Ferdman, 2017). Is it possible to be tribally equalitarian? In our commentary, we aim to explore the implications of this potential paradox by applying Clark and Winegard’s framework to an area of research we know well: Authoritarianism. Specifically, we discuss three overlapping points. (1) Research provides reasons to suspect that authoritarians exist on both the right and the left side of the political spectrum. (2) Because liberal norms in the U.S. are more equalitarian and anti-authoritarian than conservative norms, left-wing authoritarians might experience more tension about being authoritarian than right-wing authoritarians. (3) As Clark and Winegard predicted, in the case of authoritarianism, there is evidence of a possible epistemological liberal bias tilted to the equalitarian value. More so than conservatives, liberals may not want to believe that they or their leaders are authoritarian, and this can potentially lead to biases in scientific evaluation.

中文翻译:

部落平等主义的悖论

正如克拉克和温加德(本期)综合论证的那样,部落心理是普遍存在的。它没有意识形态的界限。是的,保守派和宗教人士会出现基于部落主义的认识论群体偏见;但自由主义者和无神论者也有同样的偏见。该声明似乎几乎没有争议,但自由主义者表现出群体偏见的想法似乎(对我们而言)并没有像表明保守派有这种偏见的研究那样受到同样的热情。从某种意义上说,令人好奇的是,社会心理学家应该对发现部落主义适用于我们自己的规范内群体保持沉默。毕竟,我们主要负责宣扬群体偏见对现代文化的影响。为什么我们会如此惊讶地在我们自己的比喻房子里发现同样的偏见?Clark 和 Winegard 急需的分析提供了答案的线索。他们认为 (1) 自由派社会心理学家与保守派受到相同的部落偏见的影响,(2) 自由派社会心理学家持有神圣的平等主义价值观,这使他们极有动力将群体差异最小化。重要的是,同时考虑这两个论点会增加一种可能性,即社会心理学家特别有动力相信我们的群体在平等方面优于其他群体。事实上,克拉克和温加德的分析中固有的事实是,部落内群体偏见实际上可能与现有的部落持有价值观发生冲突。基于部落主义的内群体偏见(想要相信自己的群体在珍贵的神圣价值集上优于其他群体)和平等主义的部落价值观(普遍厌恶基于群体的负面特征)使现代自由主义者处于几乎自相矛盾的境地(参见,例如,Ferdman,2017)。是否有可能实现部落平等?在我们的评论中,我们旨在通过将克拉克和温加德的框架应用于我们熟知的一个研究领域:威权主义来探索这种潜在悖论的含义。具体来说,我们讨论三个重叠点。(1) 研究提供了怀疑威权主义者存在于政治光谱的左右两侧的理由。(2) 因为美国的自由主义规范比保守主义规范更具平等主义和反威权主义,左翼威权主义者可能比右翼威权主义者经历更多关于威权主义的压力。(3) 正如克拉克和温加德预测的那样,在威权主义的情况下,有证据表明可能存在向平等主义价值倾斜的认识论自由主义偏见。与保守派相比,自由派可能更不愿意相信他们或他们的领导人是专制的,这可能会导致科学评估的偏见。
更新日期:2020-01-02
down
wechat
bug