Social Vigilantism: Measuring Individual Differences in Belief Superiority and Resistance to Persuasion

Saucier, Donald A.; Webster, Russell J.

doi:10.1177/0146167209346170

Cited by 57 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Maccoby (2000;see also DuBrin, 2012) theorized that narcissistic executives are poor listeners because they are distrustful of others' intentions. When individuals high on narcissism encounter others who have beliefs that are different from their own, they tend to think that those views are inferior and ignorant; they may even attempt to correct those views (Saucier & Webster, 2010). This is consistent with Smalley and Stake (1996; see also Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993) who found that when narcissists encounter feedback that conflicts with their grandiose sense of self, they tend to discredit the person who provided the feedback and disregard the feedback as being inaccurate.…”

Section: Consequences For Advice Takingsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…high on narcissism'' (p. 602). After all, narcissists tend to believe that their opinions are superior to others, and as a result, they exhibit resistance to persuasion (Saucier & Webster, 2010). Consistent with this, Collins and Stukas (2008) found that narcissism interacted with process accountability to predict self-presentational behavior.…”

Section: Self-enhancement and The Role Of Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice

Kausel

Culbertson

Leiva

et al. 2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Consequences For Advice Takingsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Self-enhancement and The Role Of Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 70%

Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice

Kausel

Culbertson

Leiva

et al. 2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, ideas have implications, and precipitate action (von Mises, 1963). Especially on "hot" topics-of a political, religious, or ethical nature-attitudinal disagreement is a diagnostic sign of realistic conflict, albeit latent rather than manifest.Furthermore, at a more fundamental level, beliefs can be considered the psychological equivalent of personal possessions (Abelson, 1986; Gregg, Mahadevan, & Sedikides, 2017a) SOCIAL STATUS AND IDEOLOGICAL OPPONENTS 7 which people wish to retain, or some occupied land which people which to expand (Saucier & Webster, 2010). That is, people relate psychologically to their beliefs partly as if they were physical objects or extended spaces: they can be mentally materialistic and ideologically territorial (Gregg & Mahadevan, 2014; Gregg, Mahadevan, & Sedikides, 2017b Gregg et al, 2017b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking the High Ground: The Impact of Social Status on the Derogation of Ideological Opponents

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People tend to derogate their ideological opponents. But how does social status affect this tendency? We tested a prediction derived from hierometer theory that people with higher status would derogate ideological opponents less (i.e., evaluate them more charitably). We further predicted that greater rhetoric handling prowess (RHP: feeling more confident and less intimidated while arguing) would mediate the effect. Study 1 established a link between higher status and lesser opponent derogation correlationally. Study 2 did so experimentally.Using a scale to assess RHP developed and validated in Study 3, Study 4 established that RHP statistically mediated the correlational link between status and derogation. In Study 5, experimentally manipulating status affected RHP as predicted. However, in Study 6, experimentally manipulating RHP did not affect opponent derogation as predicted. Thus, our findings were substantially, but not entirely, consistent with our theoretically-derived predictions. Implications for hierometer theory, and related theoretical approaches, are of whom had donated at least $200 towards their preferred congressional candidate. These partisans expressed far warmer sentiments towards ideological allies than towards ideological opponents. Specifically, along a 0-to-100 feeling thermometer, the average ratings were 71 versus 24 for Democrats, and 79 versus 14 for Republicans. More generally, research conducted under the rubric of the similarity-produces-liking hypothesis confirms that attitudinal agreement fosters interpersonal amity. There remains some dispute over whether an overlap in attitudes prompts more favorable evaluations, conducive to interpersonal attraction (Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986), or whether discrepancies between attitudes prompt less favorable evaluations, conducive to interpersonal repulsion (Rosenbaum, 1986).Recently, Garcia, Bergsieker, and Shelton (2015) provided an illustration of how attitudinal discrepancies affected interpersonal liking both among long-established friends and recently acquainted strangers, and in ways that reflects intergroup dynamics. In a racially mixed US sample, they found that Black participants-for whom racial issues loom larger, and whose social standing is more precarious-were especially prone to dislike other Black participants if their attitudes on race diverged.Considerations concerning the structure of society lead us to the specific question we address in this article: How does social status affect opponent derogation? Does having SOCIAL STATUS AND IDEOLOGICAL OPPONENTS 4 higher status lead one to derogate those with whom one disagrees more or less? At first blush, higher status might seem to prompt greater derogation. Society, after all, is hierarchically stratified: People occupy a particular social rank, either enviably higher or regrettably lower (Fiske, 2010). Moreover, this stratification has often been interpreted as reflective of systemic dominance and oppression (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). If so, then people of higher sta...

show abstract

“…Some researchers have argued that personality traits such as "social vigilantism"-the tendency to impose one's own beliefs on others-predict greater expressions of belief superiority and increased counter-arguing tendencies (Saucier & Webster, 2010). Other researchers have expressed the somewhat contrasting view that motivated reasoning tendencies are linked to low self-esteem (Wiersema, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt, 2012), negative mood (Jonas, Graupmann, & Frey, 2006), and threats of social exclusion (Greitemeyer, Fischer, & Kastenmüller, 2012).…”

Section: Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correcting Misinformation—A Challenge for Education and Cognitive Science

Ecker,

Swire,

Lewandowsky

2014

Processing Inaccurate Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social Vigilantism: Measuring Individual Differences in Belief Superiority and Resistance to Persuasion

Cited by 57 publications

References 27 publications

Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice

Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice

Taking the High Ground: The Impact of Social Status on the Derogation of Ideological Opponents

Correcting Misinformation—A Challenge for Education and Cognitive Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About