Development and validation of the Monopoly on Truth ScaleA measure of political extremism
- Marcos Dono 1
- Mónica Alzate 1
- Gloria Seoane 1
- José Manuel Sabucedo 1
-
1
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
info
ISSN: 0214-9915
Ano de publicación: 2018
Volume: 30
Número: 3
Páxinas: 330-336
Tipo: Artigo
Outras publicacións en: Psicothema
Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable
Resumo
Background: Extreme political attitudes have been on the rise since the economic and political crisis of 2008. This surge of extremism constitutes a real threat, as attitudes like these are dangerous for the peaceful, democratic functioning of society. A new cognitive style, Monopoly on Truth has been proposed, based mainly on the concept of naïve realism. Method: The development and validation of a scale for this new construct is the main objective of this study. A pilot study (N=209) was performed in order to gather the items that make up the fi nal scale; and a main study (N=369) was conducted to test the validity and predictive power of the scale. Results: The validation is successful as the scale shows good reliability scores, while also proving to be linked to extremism-related constructs. Additionally, the scale shows signs of not being ideologically biased. Conclusion: Results show the scale to be a very useful tool for studying extremism and other political trends. Future directions and other implications of the Monopoly on Truth are also discussed
Información de financiamento
This research is partly funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Social Fund (2016 grant for predoctoral contracts BDNS:316231 and Grants for Excellence Projects 2015. PSI2015-66608-P). Research is also partly funded by the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia (ED431B 2016/017).Financiadores
- Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia Spain
-
European Social Fund
European Union
- BDNS:316231
-
Xunta de Galicia
Spain
- ED431B 2016/017
Referencias bibliográficas
- Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Oxford, England: Harpers.
- Aymerich, J., Canales, M., & Vivanco, M. (2003). Encuesta tolerancia y no discriminación tercera medición [Tolerance and non-discrimination survey, third assessment]. Fundación Facultad Deficiencias Sociales. Departamento de Sociología. Universidad de Chile. Chile. Retrieved from: Http://Www. Libros. Uchile. Cl/240.
- Billig, M. (1979). Professor Eysenck’s political psychology. Patterns of Prejudice, 13(4), 9-16.
- Elchardus, M., & Spruyt, B. (2012). The contemporary contradictions of egalitarianism: an empirical analysis of the relationship between the old and new left/right alignments. European Political Science Review, 4(2), 217-239.
- Ellis, A. (1986). Fanaticism that may lead to a nuclear holocaust: The contributions of scientific counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 65(3), 146-151.
- Eysenck, H. J. (1951). Primary Social Attitudes as Related to Social Class and Political Party. The British Journal of Sociology, 2(3), 198-209. https://doi.org/10.2307/586720
- Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 319-359). Elsevier.
- Harrington, N. (2013). Irrational beliefs and socio-political extremism. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 31(3), 167-178.
- Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PloS One, 7(8), e42366.
- Keltner, D., & Robinson, R. J. (1996). Extremism, power, and the imagined basis of social conflict. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(4), 101-105.
- Kriesi, H. (2014). The populist challenge. West European Politics, 37(2), 361-378.
- Kurian, G. T. (2011). The encyclopedia of political science. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
- Lakoff, G. (2014). The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
- Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541-563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x
- Mudde, C. (2014). Fighting the system? Populist radical right parties and party system change. Party Politics, 20(2), 217-226. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354068813519968
- Nasie, M., Bar-Tal, D., Pliskin, R., Nahhas, E., & Halperin, E. (2014). Overcoming the barrier of narrative adherence in conflicts through awareness of the psychological bias of naïve realism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1543-1556.
- Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 404.
- Rokeach, M., & Fruchter, B. (1956). A factorial study of dogmatism and related concepts. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(3), 356-360. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042069
- Rooduijn, M., Burgoon, B., van Elsas, E. J., & van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2017). Radical distinction: Support for radical left and radical right parties in Europe. European Union Politics, 18(4), 536-559. https://doi. org/10.1177/1465116517718091
- Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1995). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 255-304). Elsevier.
- Ruiz, M. A., Pardo, A., & San Martín, R. (2010). Structural equation models. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31, 34-45.
- Rydgren, J. (2010). Radical Right-wing Populism in Denmark and Sweden: Explaining Party System Change and Stability. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 30(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1353/ sais.0.0070
- Sherman, D. K., Nelson, L. D., & Ross, L. D. (2003). Naïve Realism and Affirmative Action: Adversaries are More Similar Than They Think. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(4), 275-289.
- Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2004). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 743-756.
- Skitka, L. J., & Morgan, G. S. (2014). The Social and Political Implications of Moral Conviction. Political Psychology, 35, 95-110. https://doi. org/10.1111/pops.12166
- Smithers, A. G., & Lobley, D. M. (1978). Dogmatism, social attitudes and personality. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17(2), 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00255.x
- Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14602466.2010.01497.x
- Sullivan, J. L., & Transue, J. E. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 625-650.
- Tarrow, S. (1992). Mentalities, political cultures, and collective action frames. In Morris, Aldon & Mclurg, Carol, Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 174-202).
- Verick, S., & Islam, I. (2010). The Great Recession of 2008-2009: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses. Retrieved from https://papers. ssrn.com/abstract=1631069
- Vilas, X., & Sabucedo, J.-M. (2012). Moral obligation: A forgotten dimension in the analysis of collective action. Revista de Psicología Social, 27(3), 369-375. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347412802845577
- Walker, L. J., & Hennig, K. H. (2004). Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity: just, brave, and caring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 629.
- Ward, A., Ross, L., Reed, E., Turiel, E., & Brown, T. (1997). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social confl ict and misunderstanding. Values and Knowledge, 103-135.