Research data from the manuscript "Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments?"

Social Psychology

Authors(s) / Creator(s)

Eschert, Silke
Simon, Bernd

Abstract

Past research indicates that in political debates the same arguments are judged very differently depending on the perceiver's own position on the issue, because positions on controversial issues are often tied to collective identities. In this series of studies we tested the assumption that equality-based respect from an opposing opinion-based group can reduce such biases. Results confirmed that identification as an opponent or proponent of a contested issue was negatively related to evaluations of outgroup arguments (Study 1) and that this negative link was no longer significant when intergroup respect was experimentally induced (Study 2). Results support the notion that disagreements over political issues are intergroup conflicts, in which different socio-political groups struggle for recognition, and that approaches that protect collective identities and improve intergroup relations should be employed to de-escalate them.

Persistent Identifier

https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.etse16re12

Year of Publication

2019

Funding

German Research Foundation (DFG), Grant SI 428/20-1; Volkswagen Foundation, Grant 87 389

Citation

Eschert, S. & Simon, B. (2019). Research data from the manuscript "Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments?" (Version 1.0.0) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Research Data Center at ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.etse16re12

Study Description

Research Questions/Hypotheses:

A negative link between ingroup identification and the evaluation of outgroup arguments was expected (Hypothesis 1). Further, we proposed that this negative bias should be weakened or even removed when respect was received from the outgroup (Hypothesis 2).

Research Design:

Pretest:Questionnaire Data – Fully Standardized Survey Instrument; Study 1: Questionnaire Data – Fully Standardized Survey Instrument; Study 2: Experiment Data – Experimental Factor, Quasi-experimental Factor, Group Comparison, Laboratory Experiment; single measurement

Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:

A detailed description of the pretest, study 1 and study 2 can be found in Eschert, S. & Simon, B. (2019).

Data Collection Method:

Pretest & Study 1:
Data collection in the absence of an experimenter

Online Survey

Study 2:
Data collection in the presence of an experimenter

Individual Administration
Computer-Supported

Population:

Students from a German university

Survey Time Period:

Pretest: 2015-12-08 until 2015-12-10
Study 1: 2015-12-17 until 2015-12-23
Study 2: 2016-01-15 until 2016-02-01

Sample:

Convenience sample

Gender Distribution:

Pretest:
61 % female subjects (N=56)
38 % male subjects (N=35)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Study 1:
62 % female subjects (N=64)
37 % male subjects (N=38)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Study 2:
51 % female subjects (N=75)
48 % male subjects (N=70)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Age Distribution: Pretest: 18-31 years; Study 1: 18-45 years; Study 2: 19-32 years

Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany/-/Kiel

Subject Recruitment:

Pretest & Study 1:
Student participants were recruited through social network groups of their university.
Study 2:
Student participants were recruited on campus and invited to the lab by student assistants

Sample Size:

Pretest: 92 individuals; Study 1: 103 individuals; Study 2: 137 individuals

Return/Drop Out:

etse16re12_readme.txt

Text file - 2 KB