Position toward the status quo: Explaining differences in intergroup perceptions between left‐ and right‐wing affiliates

Bäck, Emma

doi:10.1111/jasp.12160

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The broadest dimension included arguments that defend the linguistic status quo. This theme reflects people's tendency to be generally negative about anything that is new and to prefer to keep things the way they are (Bäck 2013;Bäck and Lindholm 2014;Jost et al 2004). This phenomenon is called status quo bias (Jost et al 2004;Samuelson and Zeckenhauser 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Dimensions of Criticism Against Gender-Fair Language

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gender-neutral third-person pronoun singular hen was recently introduced in Swedish as a complement to she (hon) and he (han). The initiative to add hen initially received strong criticism. In the present study, we analyzed 208 arguments from 168 participants with critical attitudes toward hen. We used Blaubergs' (1980) and Parks and Roberton's (1998) taxonomies of critical arguments against past gender-fair language reforms in English in the 1970s and 1990s as a basis for coding the arguments. A majority of arguments (80.7%) could be coded into existing categories, indicating that criticisms of gender-fair language initiatives are similar across different times and cultural contexts. Two categories of arguments did not fit existing categories (19.3%): gender-neutral pronouns are distracting in communication and gender information is important in communication. Furthermore, we established four overarching dimensions that capture assumptions and beliefs underlying gender-fair language criticism: (a) Defending the Linguistic Status Quo (39.4%), (b) Sexism and Cisgenderism (27.4%), (c) Diminishing the Issue and Its Proponents (26.9%), and (d) Distractor In Communication (6.3%). These dimensions of criticisms should be considered and addressed in different ways when implementing gender-fair language.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Dimensions of Criticism Against Gender-Fair Language

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is some evidence that hostile attribution bias is indeed more prominent in defenders than attackers. In ideological conflicts between traditionalists who defend the status quo and revisionists who pursue change, traditionalists were more prone to polarize the two sides' attitudes and to attribute more extreme convictions to revisionists (Back 2013; Keltner & Robinson 1997; Robinson & Keltner 1996).…”

Section: Psychological Functions For Attack and Defensementioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups

Dreu

Gross

2018

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict can profoundly affect individuals and their groups. Oftentimes, conflict involves a clash between one side seeking change and increased gains through victory and the other side defending the status quo and protecting against loss and defeat. However, theory and empirical research largely neglected these conflicts between attackers and defenders, and the strategic, social, and psychological consequences of attack and defense remain poorly understood. To fill this void, we model (1) the clashing of attack and defense as games of strategy and reveal that (2) attack benefits from mismatching its target's level of defense, whereas defense benefits from matching the attacker's competitiveness. This suggests that (3) attack recruits neuroendocrine pathways underlying behavioral activation and overconfidence, whereas defense invokes neural networks for behavioral inhibition, vigilant scanning, and hostile attributions; and that (4) people invest less in attack than defense, and attack often fails. Finally, we propose that (5) in intergroup conflict, out-group attack needs institutional arrangements that motivate and coordinate collective action, whereas in-group defense benefits from endogenously emerging in-group identification. We discuss how games of attack and defense may have shaped human capacities for prosociality and aggression, and how third parties can regulate such conflicts and reduce their waste.

show abstract

“…There is some evidence that hostile attribution bias is indeed more prominent in defenders than attackers. In ideological conflicts between traditionalists who defend the status quo and revisionists who pursue change, traditionalists were more prone to polarize the two sides' attitudes and to attribute more extreme convictions to revisionists (Back 2013;Keltner & Robinson 1997;Robinson & Keltner 1996).…”

Section: Overconfidence and Hostile Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children

McLoughlin

Corriveau

2019

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that adopting a sociocultural lens to the origins of intergroup bias is important for understanding the nature of attacking and defending behavior at a group level. We specifically propose that the potential divergence in the development of in-group affiliation and out-group derogation supports De Dreu and Gross's framework but does indicate that more emphasis on early sociocultural input is required.

show abstract

Position toward the status quo: Explaining differences in intergroup perceptions between left‐ and right‐wing affiliates

Cited by 10 publications

References 31 publications

Four Dimensions of Criticism Against Gender-Fair Language

Four Dimensions of Criticism Against Gender-Fair Language

Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups

But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About