Search

As the number of political scandals rises, we examined the circumstances that might influence how a politician would be judged as a result of a scandal. Specifically, we hypothesized that ingroup bias theory and shifting standards theory would produce different patterns of judgements. In two studies, we found support for the ingroup bias theory, such that participants rated the fictitious politician's public approval and perceived character as higher if the politician was a member of their own political party (i.e. their ingroup) than if the politician was a member of the another political party (i.e. their outgroup). These results may explain, in part, why people may judge politicians involved in scandal more or less harshly depending on whether they are an ingroup member or outgroup member. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals' feelings of patriotism and nationalism may rise and fall with events that are broadcasted through media outlets or when elected political officials in times of war use phrases like, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists," or refer to other countries as "the dark side". The differential effects of these phrases are important, as feelings of patriotism and nationalism may be influenced by political news and/or broadcasted traumatic events. The current study examined to what extent priming influences nationalism-based attitudes such as patriotism, nationalism, and xenophobia. Specifically, the current study first presented participants with famous quotes that referenced the in-group vs out-group, and then measured the various nationalistic attitudes. Results indicated that when participants were exposed to positive quotes, they reported higher patriotism than those who were exposed to negative quotes. Additionally, the relationship between nationalism and xenophobia was significant in both the control and anti-America condition, but disappeared in the pro-America condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]