Ideological Connections: An Integrated Humanistic-Social Psychological Approach to Examining the Relationship Between Controversial Opposing Opinions

Abstract

The social, economic, political, and civil unrest surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 United States election, and the increased activity of the racial justice movement has seemingly divided not just the nation but the world. Thoughts and behaviors are guided by ideological beliefs—collections of ideas or philosophies associated with power structures. I examined the overlap between positions on controversial topics and identified how ideological alignment, values, and identity characteristics influenced the holders’ views. I found significant relationships among the variables categorized as social, political, health and medical, and safety, security, and legal ideologies. The results indicated that participants’ views in one ideological category were similar to those in the other ideological categories. Finally, the current study presents models of integrating worldviews in which ideological viewpoints in the various categories align, supported by the Moral Foundations Theory, Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis, and the Rigidity-of-the-Right Hypothesis.

Keywords

social justice social psychology worldview ideologies polarization political identity identity politics values attitudes moral foundations

The widespread social, economic, political, and civil unrest in the United States, stemming from the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 election, and heightened racial justice movements, has not only divided the nation but reverberated globally. Divergent perspectives, rooted in lived experiences and shaped by values, ethics, morals, and ideologies (Kubin et al., 2021), play a crucial role in influencing group beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes, impacting how individuals make sense of the world and subsequently think and behave.

Individual and public opinions, molded by social conditioning, lived experiences, and reflections, contribute to the rise and fall of ideologies. Associated with social influence, biases, and stereotypes, ideologies also influence social policy (Weber, 2019). They encompass various ideas on topics like politics, economics, social issues, and education (American Psychological Association, 2022), closely tied to power structures, such as political ideologies shaping governments’ power allocation.

Modern ideologies are intertwined with social justice issues, with some considering social justice reform its own ideology. The present study adopts a humanistic psychology lens to explore unique lived experiences within situational roles. Buss (1979) argued that humanistic psychology aligns with liberal ideology, rooted in Maslow’s self-actualization theory. Saleem et al. (2021) further posit that humanistic psychology supports social justice efforts. Therefore, this research analyzes social and political ideologies divided into distinct categories.

The Ideological Landscape

Our beliefs, actions, and perceptions evolve with society, influenced by various ideologies. This review explores four ideology categories: political, social, health and medical, and safety, security, and legal. Each section explores how these ideologies shape our responses to social issues. While some may view health and medical and safety, security, and legal ideologies as subsets of political and social ideologies, this research separates them for a nuanced analysis of the unique challenges associated with these topics. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the forces shaping human behavior and societal responses to social justice issues.

Political Ideologies

Political beliefs influence views on government functioning, shaping societal dynamics. Jost et al. (2003) argue that political ideologies reflect motivated social cognitions, varying based on geography, predispositions, and early exposure (Jost, 2017). Labels range from specific, like Republican or Democrat, to broader categories such as liberal, moderate, or conservative. Beyond the United States, political systems like Communism and Monarchies impact social issues like public goods distribution, including welfare and education (Rothmund et al., 2016).

Political ideologies significantly impact behavior, shaping attitudes and actions regarding social justice. Political identity influences how individuals perceive and interpret social issues, leading to diverse responses and approaches. Political beliefs guide thinking and shape the perception of social inequalities (Collins et al., 2021). Studies on object preference and message agreeability reveal that liberals favor quality-based objects and messages, while conservatives prefer hierarchical social constructs (Kim et al., 2018). Recognizing the influence of political ideologies on social interactions and actions related to social justice is crucial.

Social Ideologies

Social ideologies influence our social lives, perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors within society, existing at the intersection of social interaction and culture. They encompass critical issues like race-based ideologies (e.g., racism, bigotry, and supremacy), feminism, individualism versus collectivism, religion, work ethics, matriarchy versus patriarchy, and more.

Devine’s (2015) study on ideological social identity reveals a strong psychological connection to ideological in-groups. Despite political polarization, Americans exhibit varying degrees of social attitude divergence. For example, attitudes related to race, sex, and gender, crime and justice, and political bipartisanship have witnessed reduced polarization (DiMaggio et al., 1996). However, Evans (2003) notes that polarization primarily centers on morally significant topics (e.g., sexuality and abortion), particularly among politically active religious conservatives.

Movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) and All Lives Matter (ALM) offer distinct frameworks for understanding and addressing social issues related to race, inequality, and justice. The BLM movement, often dubbed the “new Black civil and human rights movement,” emerged in 2013 after George Zimmerman’s acquittal. Initially seen as an internet hashtag, it gained momentum online, supported by Black Twitter, and through physical protests against police brutality, White supremacy, and violence, rooted in anti-racism and allyship (Hoffman et al., 2016; Jones, 2020).

Conversely, the ALM stance emerged as a counter to the BLM movement. While seemingly unifying, its underlying meaning has been criticized as divisive, undermining the BLM focus on violence and social injustice within Black communities. Scholars classify ALM as anti-identity rhetoric, aligned with color-blind ideologies that overlook systemic racism (Paul, 2019; West et al., 2021).

In addition, the Blue Lives Matter movement, prominent since December 2014, is another social ideology contrasting BLM. Advocates emphasize alleged attacks on law enforcement and push for stricter sentencing laws (Smith, 2019), while scholars argue it underscores systemic racism within the United States (Thusi, 2020). Analyzing social ideologies offers insights into their impact on attitudes, societal dynamics, and social justice, demonstrating how these movements shape responses to social issues and societal progress.

The Intersection of Political and Social Ideologies

Political and social ideologies converge, molding human behavior, values, beliefs, attitudes, and actions regarding societal issues. They impact political engagement, social interactions, and the creation of echo chambers. Research indicates consistent patterns in support for movements like BLM, with Democrats favoring and Republicans opposing (Drakulich & Denver, 2022). Online discussions highlight contrasting perceptions between left-leaning and right-leaning individuals. #AllLivesMatter tweets are deemed racist by the left, while #BlackLivesMatter tweets evoke similar reactions from the right (Powell et al., 2022). The Blue Lives Matter movement garners more support within conservative circles (Solomon & Martin, 2019). These findings demonstrate how intertwined political and social beliefs influence individual perspectives and responses to societal challenges.

Health and Medical Ideologies

Health and medical ideologies shape beliefs and behaviors regarding health care policies, impacting social justice issues related to health equity and public health outcomes. These beliefs encompass topics like health care access, end-of-life decisions, abortion, mask preferences, vaccinations, and breastfeeding. According to Bodenheimer and Grumbach (2020), health care’s political and legal aspects in the United States are influenced by factors such as the government’s political ideology, the legal framework governing health care, and the impact of interest groups. Ideologies like religious freedom and individual responsibility play crucial roles in shaping the U.S. health care system, particularly in debates over issues like abortion and health care reform. These ideologies can influence opinions on health care access, the government’s role in providing health care services, ethical debates surrounding medical practices, public health policies, and health disparities. Health and medical ideologies can either perpetuate social inequalities or contribute to health equity and social justice.

Safety, Security, and Legal Ideologies

This final category focuses on decisions impacting societal safety, justice, and security, considering the complex interplay of sociopolitical considerations. These ideologies center on public policy issues related to legislation on social and political topics, like gun violence, mass incarceration, and immigration policy. Legal and policy decisions regarding safety and security significantly affect social justice outcomes. Simon (2007) argues that safety and security have become critical political issues, often framed regarding individual rights and responsibilities, but also significantly impacting social and political institutions. Argyriadis et al. (2023) found that gender discrimination and socio-cultural factors are significant barriers to accessing quality health care, leading to mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts or self-harm. These studies demonstrate that culture and public policy shape safety, security, and legal ideologies. For example, the stigmatization of LGBTQIA+ people is a product of cultural norms and values reflected in public policy, such as laws restricting equitable access to health care.

To understand how ideologies affect human behavior, it is necessary to explore the underlying morals and values that shape them. These principles and ethical beliefs delineate our perception of right and wrong, influencing our attitudes and actions toward others and our stance on social and political matters.

Theoretical Foundation: Morals, Values, and Ideological Division

Ideological divides are thought to stem from political identity, morals, and values. The moral foundations theory (MFT) posits that individuals’ moral foundations, as outlined in Table 1 (Graham et al., 2018), inform their moral judgments, leading to ideological division and conflict. Emerging foundations include liberty vs. oppression (Haidt, 2012), equity vs. need/merit (Meindl et al., 2019), and honesty vs. lying (Graham, 2015).

Table 1.

Moral Foundations and Associated Characteristics.

Moral foundation	Associated characteristics	Identifiers
Care vs. Harm	Kindness, Gentleness, and Nurturance	Sensitivity to individual suffering.
Fairness vs. Cheating	Reciprocal Altruism, Justice, Rights, Autonomy, and Proportionality	Sensitivity to exploitation.
Loyalty vs. Betrayal	Shifting coalitions, Patriotism, and Self-Sacrifice	Sensitivity to group loyalty.
Authority vs. Subversion	Hierarchical Social Interactions, Leadership/Followership, Deference, and Respect	Sensitivity to social rank and position.
Purity vs. Degradation	Sanctity, Elevation, Nobility, and Morality	Sensitivity to social threats or taboos.

Liberals and conservatives employ distinct moral foundations in making ideological judgments. Liberals mainly rely on the individualizing foundations of care vs. harm and fairness vs. cheating, while conservatives favor the binding foundations of loyalty vs. betrayal, authority vs. subversion, and sanctity vs. degradation (Graham et al., 2009; Voelkel & Brandt, 2019). Research on social justice foundations supports a positive relationship between vaccinations/immunizations and MFT foundations of authority vs. subversion and liberty vs. oppression (Heine & Wolters, 2021). Conversely, Republican governors used binding foundation arguments against Medicaid expansion, while opponents cited liberty vs. oppression arguments (Rozier & Singer, 2021).

Liberals and conservatives, with their diverse perspectives, often clash, displaying intolerance toward groups with differing values. The ideological-conflict hypothesis posits that both exhibit equal intolerance toward groups with differing values, utilizing strategies such as motivated information processing and worldview defenses against out-groups (Bal & Van den Bos, 2019; Brandt et al., 2014). The intensity of these responses depends on the group’s identity. Political liberalism is associated with flexibility, tolerance, acceptance, openness, cultural competence, inclusive mindset, and social and economic equality. Conservatives are more likely to discriminate against out-groups like ethnic and racial minorities, non-Christians, LGBTQIA+ communities, etc. (Jost et al., 2003). Robust correlations exist between conservative ideals and racism (Enders, 2021), sexism (Austin & Jackson, 2019), sexuality prejudice (Hoyt et al., 2019), rejection of scientific research (Gabel et al., 2021), and opposition to public aid, affirmative action, and social welfare (Wetherell et al., 2013). Brandt et al., (2014) summarize the conservative ideology as being rooted in “ethnocentrism, intolerance, and opposition to equality” (p. 658).

The rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis (RRH) suggests a psychological component to right-wing ideologies related to security and certainty, explaining certain conservative traits (Brandt et al., 2014; Costello et al., 2021). Individuals on the political right are characterized by increased cognitive and perceptual rigidity, a desire for group-based dominance, and a tendency to reject differing beliefs and view other ideologies as inferior. Cognitive rigidity is related to ideological extremes, partisanship, and dogmatism, regardless of political identity, with higher rates reported among conservatives (Jost et al., 2003; Jost, 2017).

Identity Politics

This review discusses various ideological theories, emphasizing the significance of individuals’ identification within their groups and the motivations that drive them, influencing these ideologies. Identity politics involves political activities shared by non-dominant groups comprising marginalized individuals based on specific factors like religion, ethnicity, gender, social background, sexual orientation, and nationality. These activities contribute to a sense of belonging and othering within society, which is crucial in the ideological landscape. Women, sexual and ethnic minorities, and others identified by their social identity are more vulnerable to injustice and social oppression (Heyes, 2020). However, changes in social dynamics and rhetoric have shifted identity politics from inclusivity to divisiveness. First, it becomes an effect of social and political polarization, leading to harmful outcomes like dehumanization and resulting in hostility and violence (Moore-Berg et al., 2020). Second, identity politics contributes to political polarization as marginalized groups form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional dominant party politics. L. Mason (2018) found that political identity was a stronger predictor of polarization than actual social and political issues on both sides of the partisan spectrum.

The Present Study

The United States has experienced heightened social, cultural, and political divisions stemming from issues like CDC regulations in the COVID-19 pandemic, differing opinions on movements like “Black Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter,” debates about the legitimacy of “Blue Lives Matter,” and the 2020 Presidential election. These divisions extend to areas such as abortion, drug laws, legal sentencing, vaccinations, health care, and immigration. This heightened polarization offers an opportunity to explore the link between worldviews and behavior. Values shape ideologies, which, in turn, influence individual and group behavior, impacting social models and laws. Threatened worldviews often lead to more negative reactions, particularly toward out-group members. Examining worldviews on current events and policy can enhance our understanding and prediction of potential behaviors.

This study aimed to investigate the influence of values and personal characteristics on people’s ideological beliefs, focusing on Political, Social, Health and Medical, and Safety, Security, and Legal categories. It was hypothesized that conservatives would exhibit rigid and oppressive views while liberals would demonstrate more open-mindedness and equity. In addition, it was proposed that views within one category would likely extend to others. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between analyzed variables, presenting integrated models of worldviews aligning across different ideological categories.

Figure 1.

Relationship Models for Political, Social, Interaction of Political and Social, Health and Medical, and Safety, Security, and Legal Ideologies.

Researcher Positionality

As a woman of color in the United States, I am aware of the controversies surrounding sensitive topics such as BLM, Blue Lives Matter, and women’s rights. As an academic and applied social psychologist guided by humanistic principles, I am aware that this group is more liberal identifying (Eitan et al., 2018) and that this political imbalance could lead to biased research methods (Duarte et al., 2015; Jussim et al., 2016). The intersection of politics and prejudice is of utmost concern to social psychologists (Brandt & Crawford, 2020) and humanistic psychologists (Benjamin, 2021).

Ideologies significantly concern both social psychologists (Saucier, 2000) and humanistic psychologists (Raskin, 2020). Despite a pervasive notion that higher education aims to indoctrinate students, this remains unsubstantiated (Shields & Dunn, 2016). While social and personality science tends to report more liberally and politically charged, trustworthy research is crucial (Hawkins et al., 2018; von Hippel & Buss, 2017). Quantitative data analysis helps mitigate biases, and I have employed tactics such as randomizing questions and answers, avoiding leading questions, and using theory to guide hypotheses and data interpretation.

Method

Participants

Statistical power analysis using the G*Power program 3.1.9.7 suggested a sample size of 88 participants was needed to detect a moderate effect size of .03 with 80% power at α = .05 (Faul et al., 2009). The final sample consisted of 1,746 adult participants, as six out of 1,752 participants who accessed the survey did not consent. Table 2 provides a full descriptive breakdown of participants’ demographic identifiers. Participants aged 18 and above were recruited through word of mouth and electronic communication channels (e.g., email, social media, professional organization communication boards, and learning management systems). The study was approved by Fort Hays State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Project # 1654249-2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Participant Statistics.

Participant demographic	n	Percent breakdown	Std. deviation
Age Range	1,746	25.5% = 18-24 36.6% = 25-34 21.8% = 35-44 10.8% = 45-54 5.3% = 55+	1.152
Employment Status	1,746	15.5% = Unemployed 84.5% = Employed	0.362
Relationship Status	1,746	46.2% = Single 53.8% = Partnered	0.499
Political Identity	1,746	75.4% = Liberal 24.6% = Conservative	0.431
Educational Status	1,746	17% = Some high school, no diploma 5.2% = High school grad, diploma or GED <1% = Some college (no degree) 1.3% = Trade/Technical/Vocational Training 5.6% = Associates Degree 15.2% = Bachelor’s Degree 43.2% = Master’s Degree 1.2% = Professional Degree 10.4% = Doctorate Degree	2.554
Residence	1,736	18% = Northeast United States 24.2% = South Atlantic United States 18.3% = Midwest United States 26.4% = West South Central United States 8.9% = West/Mountain United States 3.6% = Outside United States <1% = Did not disclose	1.509
Student Status	1,746	42.6% = Student 57.4% = Not a student	0.495
Sex	1,746	26.2% = Male 73.8% = Female	0.440
Sexual Orientation	1,746	25.7% = LGBTQIA+ 74.3% = Heterosexual	0.437
Race	1,746	67.6% = White 32.4% = BIPOC (Non-White)	0.468

Procedures and Measures

Participants completed a Google Forms survey called This or That, choosing between two scenarios or items. The software protected their anonymity and let them skip uncomfortable items. The participants consented, gave a pseudonym, answered demographic questions, and finally played the This or That game. The term game was deliberately used in the study instead of survey to make it more enjoyable for the participants and enhance the credibility of the findings. Participants were instructed to read each set of items and pick the most relevant or preferable item from the pair. Scenarios ranged from lighthearted topics like taste buds (sweet vs. savory) to critical research factors such as ideology (BLM vs. ALM) and abortion (pro-choice vs. pro-life). The complete game questionnaire is available in Table 3.

Table 3.

This or That Game Questions.

Category	Scenario	Option 1	Option 2
Standard Game Items	Streaming service	Netflix	Hulu
	Milk	Dairy	Almond/Soy
	Dinner	Cook at home	Dining Out
	Pets	Dog	Cat
	Sex	Male	Female
	Washing	Shower	Bath
	Vacation	Beach	Mountains
	Higher Education	Trade/2-year	University/4-year
	Communication	Phone Calls	Texts
	Personality Type	Passive	Aggressive
	Taste Buds	Sweet	Savory
	Personality 2	Introvert	Extrovert
	Personal Style	Comfortable/Casual	Trendy/Fashionable
	Energy Level	Early Bird	Night Owl
	Entertainment	Books	Movies
	The fate of the universe. . .	Marvel	DC
	Twilight	Team Edward	Team Jacob
	Social Media	Facebook	Instagram
	Ice cream	Chocolate	Vanilla
Demographic Questions	Race^a	White	Non-White
Demographic Questions	Sexual Orientation^a	Heterosexual	LGBTQIA+
Social Ideologies	Ideology^b	Black Lives Matter	All Lives Matter
Social Ideologies	Blue Lives Matter^b	Valid (Support)	Invalid (Reject)
Political Ideologies	Political Identity^c	Conservative	Liberal
Political Ideologies	2020 Presidential Election^b	Trump/Pence	Biden/Harris
Health and Medical Ideologies	COVID-19 Mask^b	Mask On	No Mask
	Abortion^b	Pro-Life	Pro-Choice
	Healthcare^b	Free Universal Healthcare	Private Healthcare
	Vaccine Controversy^b	Anti-Vaxxer	Vaccinations
	Breastfeeding^b	Covered	However, they want
Safety, Security, and Legal Ideologies	Legal Sentencing^b	Death Penalty	Life without parole
	Drug Laws^b	Legalize Marijuana	Oppose legalization
	Second Amendment^b	Less gun control	Increased gun control
	Immigration^b	Support border wall	Oppose border wall
	Sexual Orientation: LGBTGIA+^b	Choice	Predetermined

Demographic questions.

Critical items for ideological assessment.

Critical items and demographic questions.

The game items were randomized to reduce order bias. After the game, participants were fully debriefed about the researcher’s intention to explore the relationship between viewpoints and ideologies for academic and scholarly purposes. If the participants were uncomfortable using their answers for research purposes, they could choose not to submit the materials.

Data Analysis

Data were collected using a multivariate correlational research design. All analyses were performed using SPSS v. 28.0. Descriptive statistics were used to provide a concise and meaningful overview of the data set’s essential characteristics, patterns, and trends. Pearson Chi-Square tests were employed to investigate the relationship between variables with two categories, whereas Log-linear analysis was used for categories with more than two variables.

Results

Sociopolitical Ideologies: The Influence of Political Identity

Political identity is strongly linked to all the factors in the four ideological categories at the p ≤ .01 level (Table 4). Table 5 presents the frequencies of the participants’ political identity and their views on the ideological categories. The hypothesis that liberals would hold more flexible and equitable views while conservatives would have more rigid and oppressive ideals was supported across all political identity variables with slight variations on certain levels.

Table 4.

Statistics of Political Identity and Other Critical Factors.

Category	Ideological factors	n	χ²	df	p	ϕ
Social	Political ID × Lives Ideology	1,746	609.614	1	<.001	.591
Social	Political Identity × Blue Lives	1,746	477.471	1	<.001	–.523
Political	Political ID × 2020 Presidential Preference	1,746	939.89	1	<.001	.73
Health and Medical	Political ID × Mask Preference	1,736	378.92	1	<.001	.467
	Political ID × Vaccines	1,746	74.171	1	<.001	–.206
	Political ID × Healthcare	1,746	607.687	1	<.001	.59
	Political ID × Abortion	1,746	546.983	1	<.001	–.56
	Political ID × Breastfeeding	1,746	116.571	1	<.001	–.258
Safety, Security, and Legal	Political ID × Second Amendment	1,746	468.449	1	<.001	–.518
	Political ID × Legal Sentencing	1,746	177.176	1	<.001	–.319
	Political ID × Drug Laws	1,746	195.723	1	<.001	.335
	Political ID × Immigration	1,746	628.376	1	<.001	–.600
	Political ID × LGBTQIA+ Orientation	1,746	153.055	1	<.001	–.296

Table 5.

Frequencies and Percentages of Ideological Categories for Liberals and Conservatives.

		Liberal		Conservative
Ideological category	Critical factor options	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Social	BLM	1,224	92.9	160	37.3
	ALM	93	7.1	269	62.7
	Reject Blue Lives	1,094	83.1	116	27
	Support Blue Lives	223	16.9	313	73
Political	Biden and Harris	1,288	97.8	136	31.7
Political	Trump and Pence	29	2.2	293	68.3
Health and Medical	Mask On	1,258	96.2	257	60
	Mask Off	50	3.8	171	40
	Vaccinations	1,259	95.6	356	83
	Antivaxxer	58	4.4	73	17
	Free Universal Healthcare	1,251	95	182	42.4
	Private Healthcare	66	5	247	57.6
	Pro-Choice	1,222	92.8	175	40.8
	Pro-Life	95	7.2	254	59.2
	Breastfeeding—Choice	943	71.6	184	42.9
	Covered Breastfeeding	374	28.4	245	57.1
Safety, Security, and Legal	More Gun Control	989	75.1	70	16.3
	Less Gun Control	328	24.9	359	83.7
	Life without parole	1,068	81.1	207	48.3
	Support death penalty	249	18.9	222	51.7
	Legalize Marijuana	1,219	92.6	281	65.5
	Oppose Legalization	98	7.4	148	34.5
	Oppose Border Wall	1,249	94.8	175	40.8
	Support Border Wall	68	5.2	254	59.2
	LGBTQIA+ Predetermined	1,066	80.9	217	50.6
	LGBTQIA+ Choice	251	19.1	212	49.4

Political identity significantly impacts Social Ideologies. Liberals predominantly supported Black Lives Matter (92.9%) and rejected Blue Lives Matter (83.1%), while conservatives leaned toward All Lives Matter (62.7%) and Blue Lives Matter (73%). This influence extended to the 2020 Presidential Preference, where 91% of conservatives preferred Trump/Pence, and 90.4% of liberals chose Biden/Harris. In the realm of Health and Medical Ideologies, both liberals (96.2%) and conservatives (60%) largely preferred mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, with more conservatives (77.4%) opting not to. Similarly, liberals (95.6%) and conservatives (83%) supported vaccines, though more conservatives identified as anti-vaxxers (55.7%). Liberals largely supported free universal health care (95%) and were pro-choice (92.8%), while conservatives favored private health care (57.6%) and were pro-life (59.2%). In terms of breastfeeding, a higher percentage of liberals (71.6%) support women breastfeeding freely, while conservatives (57.1%) lean toward the view that women should be covered. Finally, regarding Safety, Security, and Legal Ideologies, conservatives advocated for less gun control (83.7%) and the death penalty (51.7%), while liberals favored stricter gun control (75.1%) and life without parole (81.1%). Both groups supported legalizing marijuana, with more conservatives opposing it (60.2%). Most participants believed LGBTQIA+ orientation is predetermined, with more liberals (80.9%) than conservatives (50.6%) agreeing. Among those who believe it is a choice, more identified as liberal (54.2%). Finally, most liberals (94.8%) opposed the border wall, while most conservatives (59.2%) supported it.

Social Ideologies

The analysis showed that 79.3% of participants supported BLM, while 20.7% believed in ALM. In addition, 69.3% disagreed with the concept of Blue Lives, while 30.7% supported Blue Lives Matter. A significant association was found between these views, with 82.3% of BLM supporters rejecting Blue Lives Matter and 80.4% of ALM supporters endorsing it, χ² (1, n = 1,746) = 529.98, p < .001; w = .55.

The Intersection of Political and Social Ideologies

A hierarchical log-linear analysis on ideology of lives, Blue Lives Matter, and political identity yielded a significant relationship, χ² (1, n = 1,746) = 17.220, p < .001. See Table 6 for the detailed specific statistical relationships between these factors, excluding those already discussed in the political ideologies results. Similarly, Table 7 displays the alignment of participants’ political and social ideologies as predicted. Most participants who support BLM reject Blue Lives Matter and identify as liberal (61.1%). Conversely, those who support ALM, endorse Blue Lives Matter, and identify as conservative make up 12.9% of participants. While two-way interactions are noteworthy, the focus is on the highest-order terms of the three-way model.

Table 6.

Statistics of Social and Political Ideology Factors.

Ideological factors	n	χ²	df	p	ϕ
Political ID × BLM × Blue Lives (Political × Social)^a	1,746	17.220	1	<.001	-
Political ID × BLM (Political × Social)	1,746	609.614	1	<.001	.591
2020 U.S. Pres. Pref × BLM (Political × Social)	1,746	687.365	1	<.001	–.627
2020 U.S. Pres. Pref × Blue Lives (Political × Social)	1,746	453.347	1	<.001	.510
BLM × Blue Lives (Social)	1,746	529.978	1	<.001	–.551

Represents the three-way relationship from the hierarchical log-linear analysis.

Table 7

Political and Social Ideologies Counts From the 3-Way Hierarchical Log-Linear Analysis.

Lives ideology	Blue lives ideology	Political identity	Observed		Expected
Lives ideology	Blue lives ideology	Political identity	Count	Percent	Count	Percent
Black Lives Matter	Support	Liberal	157.00	9.0	157.00	9.0
	Support	Conservative	88.00	5.0	88.00	5.0
	Reject	Liberal	1,067.00	61.1	1,067.00	61.1
	Reject	Conservative	72.00	4.1	72.00	4.1
All Lives Matter	Support	Liberal	66.00	3.8	66.00	3.8
	Support	Conservative	225.00	12.9	225.00	12.9
	Reject	Liberal	27.00	1.5	27.00	1.5
		Conservative	44.00	2.5	44.00	2.5

The 2020 U.S. presidential preference did not fit in the hierarchical log-linear analysis. However, chi-square tests showed a significant association between participants’ presidential preference and their views on BLM vs. ALM and Blue Lives Matter. More Trump and Pence supporters believe in ALM (74.2%) and Blue Lives Matter (80.1%). In contrast, Biden and Harris supporters overwhelmingly support BLM (91.4%) and reject Blue Lives Matter (94.7%).

Health and Medical Ideologies

Regarding Health and Medical Ideologies, participants’ views were notably skewed. Most participants (86.8%) reported wearing masks during COVID-19, 80% identified as pro-choice, 82.1% supported free universal health care, and 92.5% supported vaccines. A three-way interaction between mask preference, abortion, and health care was significant (p = .024). The data presented in Table 8 indicate that participants who wore masks were also more likely to be pro-choice and support free universal health care (69.9%), whereas those who refused masks were more likely to be pro-life and support private health care (5.6%), χ² (1, n = 1,736) = 7.765, p = .05.

Table 8.

Health and Medical Ideologies Counts From the Three-Way Hierarchical Log-Linear Analysis.

Mask preference	Abortion stance	Medical healthcare	Observed		Expected
Mask preference	Abortion stance	Medical healthcare	Count	Percent	Count	Percent
Mask On	Pro-Life	Free Universal Healthcare	128	7.4	128	7.4
	Pro-Life	Private Healthcare	91	5.2	91	5.2
	Pro-Choice	Free Universal Healthcare	1,213	69.9	1,213	69.9
	Pro-Choice	Private Healthcare	83	4.8	83	4.8
Mask Off	Pro-Life	Free Universal Healthcare	31	1.8	31	1.8
	Pro-Life	Private Healthcare	98	5.6	98	5.6
	Pro-Choice	Free Universal Healthcare	51	2.9	51	2.9
		Private Healthcare	41	2.4	41	2.4

Table 9 displays significant relationships between health and medical factors. Mask preference was significantly associated with abortion, χ² (1, n = 1,736) = 232.07, p < .001, with pro-life views more common among those rejecting masks (58.4%) and pro-choice views prevalent among mask-wearers (85.5%). Mask preference also correlated with health care expectations, χ² (1, n = 1,736) = 344.92, p < .001, with mask-wearers favoring free universal health care (88.5%) and most mask-off participants preferring private health care (62.9%). Health care views significantly correlated with abortion views, X² (1, n = 1,746) = 389.1, p < .001, with pro-life participants supporting private health care (60.4%) and pro-choice participants favoring free universal health care (88.8%).

Table 9.

Statistics of Health and Medical Ideology Factors.

Ideological factors	N	χ²	df	p	ϕ
Mask × Abortion × Healthcare^a	1,736	7.76	1	.005	-
Mask × Abortion	1,736	232.07	1	<.001	−.366
Mask × Healthcare	1,736	344.92	1	<.001	.446
Abortion × Healthcare	1,746	389.1	1	<.001	−.472
Vaccine × Mask	1,736	126.91	1	<.001	−.270
Vaccine × Abortion	1,746	26.86	1	<.001	.124
Vaccine × Healthcare	1,746	28.44	1	<.001	−.128
Breastfeeding × Mask	1,736	29.84	1	<.001	−.131
Breastfeeding × Abortion	1,746	91.04	1	<.001	.228
Breastfeeding × Healthcare	1,746	63.37	1	<.001	−.191
Breastfeeding × Vaccine	1,746	13.79	1	<.001	.089

Represents the three-way relationship from the hierarchical log-linear analysis.

Vaccination views also correlate with opinions on public breastfeeding. Most participants believe women should breastfeed however they want (64.5%), and among them, 94.2% support vaccines. Among those who believe women should be covered when breastfeeding (35.5%), a large proportion also support vaccines (89.3%). Other health and medical factors further influence views on breastfeeding. For instance, a small proportion of participants who prefer not to wear masks also believe women should cover when breastfeeding (18.6%), while a large proportion of mask-wearing participants believe women should breastfeed however they want (90%). Interestingly, this group is comfortable with others being covered but not themselves. Those who believe women should feed freely are also predominantly pro-choice (86.8%) and support free universal health care (87.5%).

Safety, Security, and Legal Ideologies

A five-way model of Safety, Security, and Legal Ideologies did not yield a significant relationship; however, removing the Second Amendment factor improved the model fit. A four-way log-linear analysis testing the associations of legal sentencing, drug laws, immigration, and LGBTQIA+ orientation produced significant results, χ² (1) = 4.660, p = .031 (Table 10).

Table 10.

Statistics of Safety, Security, and Legal Ideology Factors.

Ideological factors	n	χ²	df	p	ϕ
Legal sentencing × drug laws × immigration × LGBTQIA+ Orientation^a	1,746	4.66	1	.031	-
Legal sentencing × Drug laws	1,746	39.67	1	<.001	−.151
Legal sentencing × Immigration	1,746	221.88	1	<.001	.356
Legal sentencing × LGBTQIA+	1,746	25.206	1	<.001	.120
LGBTQIA+ × Drug Laws	1,746	86.738	1	<.001	−.223
LGBTQIA+ × Immigration	1,746	69.445	1	<.001	.199
Immigration × Drug Laws	1,746	131.413	1	<.001	−.274
Second Amendment × Legal Sentencing	1,746	157.428	1	<.001	.300
Second Amendment × Drug Laws	1,746	44.183	1	<.001	−.159
Second Amendment × Immigration	1,746	336.868	1	<.001	.439
Second Amendment × LGBTQIA+	1,746	72.687	1	<.001	.204

Represents the three-way relationship from the hierarchical log-linear analysis.

Based on cell counts and residuals (Table 11), the largest proportion of participants support life without parole (legal sentencing), marijuana legalization (drug laws), oppose the border wall (immigration), and believe LGBTQIA+ orientation is predetermined (49.3%, n = 861). Marijuana legalization was not a major point of contention, with 85.9% of all participants supporting it. When analyzing the other factors and folding drug laws in, we see that about 5% of participants who support the death penalty also support the border wall and believe that LGBTQIA+ orientation is a choice.

Table 11.

Safety, Security, and Legal Ideologies Counts From the Four-Way Hierarchical Log-Linear Analysis.

Legal sentencing	Drug laws	Immigration	LGBTQIA+ orientation	Observed		Expected
Legal sentencing	Drug laws	Immigration	LGBTQIA+ orientation	Count	Percent	Count	Percent
Support death penalty	Legalize Marijuana	Supports border wall	Choice	46	2.6	46	2.6
		Supports border wall	Predetermined	75	4.3	75	4.3
		Opposes border wall	Choice	65	3.7	65	3.7
		Opposes border wall	Predetermined	178	10.2	178	10.2
	Oppose Legalization	Supports border wall	Choice	39	2.2	39	2.2
		Supports border wall	Predetermined	34	1.9	34	1.9
		Opposes border wall	Choice	16	0.9	16	0.9
		Opposes border wall	Predetermined	18	1.0	18	1.0
Life without parole	Legalize Marijuana	Supports border wall	Choice	43	2.5	43	2.5
		Supports border wall	Predetermined	48	2.7	48	2.7
		Opposes border wall	Choice	184	10.5	184	10.5
		Opposes border wall	Predetermined	861	49.3	861	49.3
	Oppose Legalization	Supports border wall	Choice	17	1.0	17	1.0
		Supports border wall	Predetermined	20	1.1	20	1.1
		Opposes border wall	Choice	53	3.0	53	3.0
			Predetermined	49	2.8	49	2.8

Chi-square tests revealed significant associations between all factors. Legal sentencing views were significantly associated with drug laws, χ² (1, n = 1,746) = 39.67, p < .001, views on immigration regarding the border wall, χ² (1, n = 1,746) = 221.88, p < .001, and LGBTQIA+ orientation, χ² (1, n = 1,746) = 25.206, p < .001. Participants supporting life without parole were more likely to support marijuana legalization (89.1%), oppose the border wall (90%), and believe that LGBTQIA+ orientation is predetermined (76.7%). Regarding LGBTQIA+ orientation, participants who believe that sexual orientation is predetermined also support marijuana legalization (90.6%) and oppose the border wall (86.2%).

Discussion

This research aimed to assess the consistency of ideological views across various categories drawing on three influential theoretical foundations: the Moral Foundations Theory, Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis, and Rigidity-of-the-Right Hypothesis. As anticipated, attitudes aligned—political identity significantly shapes individuals’ positions on current topics, with conservatives leaning toward more rigid, intolerant, and oppressive ideologies, while liberals endorse flexible and equitable ideologies, supported by. This study supports Kubin and Brandt’s (2020) findings of significant ideological differences in politics, figures, values, threat, complexity, morality, religion, and harm. Although Brandt et al. (2014) argue that opposing policies do not always reflect ideological dogmatism, this assertion might be less valid now. These results also underscore the crucial role of identity politics in people’s decision-making (Heyes, 2020).

Supporting a Converging Trifecta of Theories

In line with MFT, evidence indicates that liberals lean toward individualizing foundations (such as individual rights and autonomy), while conservatives align with binding foundations (including collective good, coherence, and hierarchy) (Graham et al., 2009; Voelkel & Brandt, 2019). This suggests that variations in ideological beliefs between liberals and conservatives are grounded in their moral foundations. While causation remains unestablished in this study, there is support for predicting beliefs based on political identity. Liberals tend to support compassionate, fair, and equitable views, whereas conservatives tend to favor in-group loyalty, respect for authorities, and physical/spiritual purity. For instance, liberals often back BLM and oppose Blue Lives, while conservatives support ALM and Blue Lives Matter—a pattern consistent with findings on protest evaluations (Goff et al., 2022; Richardson & Conway, 2022).

In health and medical ideologies, liberals are more likely to endorse masks, vaccines, pro-choice, and free universal health care, while conservatives tend to be anti-mask, anti-vax, pro-choice, and prefer private health care. These findings align with MFT, indicating that liberals are more progressive on health topics, while conservatives prioritize personal freedoms. In the breastfeeding category, there is a less distinct divide, with more liberals than expected supporting covered breastfeeding, and a slight conservative majority sharing this view. Public opinion, influenced by morality, suggests discretion during public breastfeeding due to the hypersexualization of breasts (Bresnahan et al., 2019), varying with cultural and social norms. Opposition to public breastfeeding is mainly rooted in hostile sexism toward women, violating traditional gender roles (Huang et al., 2020).

In safety, security, and legal ideologies, liberals mostly support increased gun control, life without parole, marijuana legalization, and oppose the border wall. Conversely, conservatives favor less gun control, capital punishment, marijuana prohibition, and the border wall. Cook (2015) found that supporters of gun control often emphasize the individualizing foundation of care, while opponents lean on binding foundations of liberty, loyalty, and authority. Silver and Silver (2017) found that conservatives, being more punitive, align with MFT’s binding orientation, supporting findings on capital punishment. Roy and Goldwasser (2021) found that Republicans used more binding moral foundations terminology in congressional tweets on gun control and immigration. Regarding marijuana policy, Dias (2017) found that conservative opposition was partly due to reliance on binding foundations of authority and purity.

Views on LGBTQIA+ orientation were unexpected. A Pew Research Center poll (2013) showed that 52% of Republicans and 39% of Democrats believed homosexuality was a choice, while 28% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats believed it was predetermined. While political identity predicts LGBTQIA+ views, other factors may influence right-leaning views. Research links moral foundations to attitudes toward homosexuality, with conservative opposition to same-sex marriage rooted in binding foundations and liberal support in individualizing foundations (Barnett et al., 2018; Haidt & Graham, 2007).

The findings further align with the ideological-conflict hypothesis. For example, Crawford (2014) found political intolerance between conservatives and liberals. This hypothesis also suggests that groups dislike conflicting views and use strategies like motivated information processing to maintain their worldview. Consider the alignment of views in social ideology outcomes, where BLM supporters oppose Blue Lives Matter and vice versa. Each group shows intolerance and uses tactics like deflection and denial to support their views (Robinson, 2021). Solomon and Martin (2019) report that ALM and Blue Lives Matter advocates use whataboutism, a tactic that disputes others transgressions, by “choos[ing] not to address the structural discrimination and violence and instead deflects attention away from police violence onto another topic that focuses blame back on the Black community” (p. 19).

People also defend against worldview-violating groups by derogating and denigrating those with differing ideologies, which can manifest as prejudice and discrimination (Bal & Van den Bos, 2019; Brandt et al., 2014). Examples include the devaluation of anti-vaxxers by vaccine supporters or verbal attacks on immigration policy supporters by those advocating for more inclusive reform, such as describing people with opposing worldviews as insane, immoral, unintelligent, etc. Furthermore, these responses have been found “to improve one’s own self-views or group-views, just as other forms of prejudice can boost self-esteem” (Brandt & Crawford, 2020, p. 3).

Finally, the RRH is supported by the study’s outcomes. The data indicate that conservatives hold more rigid views on issues like ALM, Blue Lives Matter, public health care reform, abortion stance, breastfeeding options, gun policy, capital punishment, and immigration, as argued by Costello et al. (2021) and Zmigrod (2020).

Limitations and Future Research

There are a few important limitations associated with the current study. First, the dichotomous design of the measure may marginalize participants or lead to identity erasure. For instance, demographic questions asking participants to identify as White or Non-White, or Heterosexual vs. LGBTQIA+, might induce discomfort or forced misrepresentation. Future studies could enhance inclusivity by expanding variable levels. Second, the sample was predominantly liberal due to researcher access. Future studies should strive for more diverse participant groups to validate observed divides. Third, the sample size limited log-linear analysis models where no significant relationships were found in the five-factor models. Future studies with larger samples may better support these relationships. Fourth, the gamified design may have trivialized complex issues like BLM, health care access, and gun reform policy. Future research should explore alternative presentation methods. Finally, the cross-sectional design and data collection during a politically charged period may not fully capture the complexity of ideological shifts in response to major events. Longitudinal or historical analyses would enhance understanding, as would exploring the role of media and communication in shaping ideological responses.

While prior research has linked sociopolitical issues to conservative or liberal leanings in the United States, this study extends that by demonstrating the same pattern through a unique measure. This measure incorporates emerging topics such as BLM, ALM, Blue Lives Matter, mask preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the immigration protection border wall. These issues, not previously part of such discussions, intersect with contentious topics like abortion, vaccinations, breastfeeding, health care, gun rights, the death penalty, and drug laws, marking a novel approach in empirical research.

The study’s outcomes align with Brandt et al.’s (2014) suggestion that future research should draw firmer conclusions about the scope and variability of ideological conflicts in the real world. It is insufficient to presume that individuals with oppressive ideological views on traditional issues would hold the same views in humanity-based arguments such as BLM and ALM without empirical evidence.

Conclusion

Diverse views on social and political ideologies can foster creativity and innovation, but interventions become imperative when these attitudes result in harm to out-groups. Instances like Teri Hill’s violent and racist reaction at a Home Depot in July 2020 for being asked to wear a mask underscore the potential dangers. She further threatened to cough and spit on patrons stating she could act like that because “. . . because [she’s] a White woman . . . [she] believe[s] in White power . . .” (ABC 7 Chicago Digital Team, 2021). Another incident involved a self-proclaimed Trump supporter berating a Starbucks barista in October 2020, yelling “F*** black lives matter” and dismissing the COVID-19 pandemic as a “hoax” after being asked to keep her mask on (Meeks et al., 2020).

Concerns escalate when negative attitudes lead to discriminatory and dangerous behaviors, as seen in vehicle ramming attacks during social justice protests and the U.S. Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021 (Jenkins & Butterworth, 2020; Lonsdorf et al., 2022). Contentious issues like abortion and gun policy have also resulted in harmful outcomes, with pro-life extremists resorting to harassment and violence against pro-choice advocates and stricter gun control proponents facing hate speech and opposition (Cortese, 2012; C. Mason, 2002).

Reed and Aquino (2003) note that people justify harming out-group members if beneficial to the in-group or directed by an authority figure, emphasizing the need for further research on factors contributing to ideological conflicts and their harmful consequences. The findings stress the importance of investigating psychological mechanisms leading to radicalization within ideological groups and exploring preventive measures against extremist behavior. Understanding the complexities of ideological divisions is crucial for developing strategies to foster positive discussions and promote social harmony. Policymakers and activists must consider potential risks in polarizing issues and take steps to ensure the safety and well-being of all parties involved. This research highlights the necessity of handling ideological conflicts with care and diligence to cultivate a more inclusive and peaceful society.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nuchelle L. Chance

Author Biography

Nuchelle L. Chance, PhD, is an applied social psychologist and leadership scholar-practitioner at Fort Hays State University. Her focus lies at the intersection of sex and gender, women’s studies, race, learning, perceptions and attitudes, and leadership development. As a junior faculty and early career researcher, she examines how these factors influence individuals’ experiences in both academic and professional environments. She utilizes her academic platform as a means to highlight and dismantle injustice.

References

ABC 7 Chicago Digital Team. (2021, April 15). Woman caught on video in violent McHenry home depot mask dispute, declaring “I believe in white power” found not guilty. https://abc7chicago.com/mchenry-home-depot-teri-hill-white-power/10517005/

American Psychological Association. (2022). Ideology. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/ideology

Argyriadis

Fradelos

E. C.

Argyriadi

Ziegler

Kaba

(2023). Advancing access to quality LGBTQIA+ health care: Gender discrimination, socio-cultural, and mental health issues: A mixed-method study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), Article 4767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064767

Austin

D. E.

Jackson

(2019). Benevolent and hostile sexism differentially predicted by facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.002

Bal

Van den Bos

(2019). Worldview defense, prejudice, and derogating others. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.266

Barnett

M. D.

Öz

Marsden

A. D.

(2018). Economic and social political ideology and homophobia: The mediating role of binding and individualizing moral foundations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(4), 1183–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0989-2

Benjamin

(2021). Trump, the coronavirus pandemic, Asian American xenophobia, and humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(2), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167820979650

Bodenheimer

T. S.

Grumbach

(2020). Understanding health policy: A clinical approach (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Brandt

M. J.

Crawford

J. T.

(2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In Gawronski

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 1–66). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002

10.

Brandt

M. J.

Reyna

Chambers

J. R.

Crawford

J. T.

Wetherell

(2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932

11.

Bresnahan

Zhu

Zhuang

Yan

(2019). “He wants a refund because I’m breastfeeding my baby”: A thematic analysis of maternal stigma for breastfeeding in public. Stigma and Health, 5(4), 394–403. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/sah0000208

12.

Buss

A. R.

(1979). Humanistic psychology as liberal ideology: The socio-historical roots of Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 19(3), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216787901900309

13.

Collins

R. N.

Mandel

D. R.

Schywiola

S. S.

(2021). Political identity over personal impact: Early US reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 607639. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.607639

14.

Cook

E. V.

(2015). Talking past each other: The diverging moral foundations of the contemporary gun debate. Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 28(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.5070/B3281024090

15.

Cortese

(2012). The Tucson Massacre: Deconstructing competing claims. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 40(2), 60–71. https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/FICS/article/view/1660

16.

Costello

T. H.

Bowes

Baldwin

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Tasimi

(2021). Are conservatives more rigid than liberals? A meta-analytic test of the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kq4mn.

17.

Crawford

J. T.

(2014). Ideological symmetries and asymmetries in political intolerance and prejudice toward political activist groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.08.002

18.

Devine

C. J.

(2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Behavior, 37(3), 509–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9280-6

19.

Dias

R. D. S.

(2017). Political views, morality, and attitudes toward marijuana legalization (CDD—658.40301) [Doctoral dissertation, FGV EBAPE—Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas]. FGV Digital Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10438/24098

20.

DiMaggio

Evans

Bryson

(1996). Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755. https://doi.org/10.1086/230995

21.

Drakulich

Denver

(2022). The partisans and the persuadables: Public views of Black Lives Matter and the 2020 protests. Perspectives on Politics, 20(4), 1191–1208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721004114

22.

Duarte

J. L.

Crawford

J. T.

Stern

Haidt

Jussim

Tetlock

P. E.

(2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, Article e130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430

23.

Eitan

Viganola

Inbar

Dreber

Johannesson

Pfeiffer

Thau

Uhlmann

E. L.

(2018). Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.004

24.

Enders

A. M.

(2021). A matter of principle? On the relationship between racial resentment and ideology. Political Behavior, 43(2), 561–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09561-w

25.

Evans

J. H.

(2003). Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized?—An update. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8401005

26.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

27.

Gabel

Gooblar

Roe

C. M.

Morris

J. C.

(2021). The ideological divide in confidence in science and participation in medical research. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82516-6

28.

Goff

Silver

Iceland

(2022). The resonance of repression: Moral intuitions, skepticism toward racial injustice, and public support for Trump’s “law and order” response to the 2020 racial justice protests. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221110277

29.

Graham

(2015). Explaining away differences in moral judgment: Comment on Gray and Keeney (2015). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 869–873. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615592242

30.

Graham

Haidt

Motyl

Meindl

Iskiwitch

Mooijman

(2018). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In Gray

Graham

(Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–222). The Guilford Press.

31.

Graham

Haidt

Nosek

B. A.

(2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141

32.

Haidt

(2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.

33.

Haidt

Graham

(2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

34.

Hawkins

Yudkin

Juan-Torres

Dixon

(2018). Hidden tribes: A study of America’s polarized landscape. More in Common.

35.

Heine

Wolters

(2021). Using moral foundations in government communication to reduce vaccine hesitancy. PLOS ONE, 16(11), Article e0259435. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259435

36.

Heyes

(2020). Identity politics. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/identity-politics/

37.

Hoffman

Granger

Jr. Vallejos

Moats

(2016). An existential–humanistic perspective on Black Lives Matter and contemporary protest movements. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 56(6), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167816652273

38.

Hoyt

C. L.

Morgenroth

Burnette

J. L.

(2019). Understanding sexual prejudice: The role of political ideology and strategic essentialism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12560

39.

Huang

Sibley

C. G.

Osborne

(2020). Breast is best, but where? Hostile sexism underlies men’s opposition to breastfeeding in public. Journal of Social Issues, 76(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12379

40.

Jenkins

B. M.

Butterworth

B. R.

(2020). Metal against marchers: An analysis of recent incidents involving vehicle assaults at U.S. political protests and rallies. Mineta Transportation Institute. https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/SP1020-Metal-Against-Marchers.pdf

41.

Jones

L. K.

(2020). #BlackLivesMatter: An analysis of the movement as social drama. Humanity & Society, 44(1), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0160597619832049

42.

Jost

J. T.

(2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407

43.

Jost

J. T.

Glaser

Kruglanski

A. W.

Sulloway

(2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

44.

Jussim

Crawford

J. T.

Anglin

S. M.

Stevens

S. T.

Duarte

J. L.

(2016). Interpretations and methods: Towards a more effectively self-correcting social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.003

45.

Kim

C. H.

Han

Duhachek

Tormala

Z. L.

(2018). Political identity, preference, and persuasion. Social Influence, 13(4), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2018.1518786

46.

Kubin

Brandt

M. J.

(2020). Identifying the domains of ideological similarities and differences in attitudes. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 4(1), 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2020.1756242

47.

Kubin

Puryear

Schein

Gray

(2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6), Article e2008389118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008389118

48.

Lonsdorf

Dorning

Isackson

Kelly

M. L.

Chang

(2022, June 9). A timeline of how the Jan. 6 attack unfolded — including who said what and when. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1069977469/a-timeline-of-how-the-jan-6-attack-unfolded-including-who-said-what-and-when

49.

Mason

(2002). Killing for life: The apocalyptic narrative of pro-life politics. Cornell University Press.

50.

Mason

(2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005

51.

Meeks

Chan

Williams

Asmelash

(2020, October 30). White woman caught on video yelling obscenities at a Black Starbucks barista over face mask. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/us/starbucks-trump-supporter-trnd/index.html

52.

Meindl

P., a, R.

Graham

(2019). Distributive justice beliefs are guided by whether people think the ultimate goal of society is well-being or power. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1663524

53.

Moore-Berg

S. L.

Hameiri

Bruneau

(2020). The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.001

54.

Paul

(2019). “Not Black and White, but Black and Red”: Anti-identity identity politics and #AllLivesMatter. Ethnicities, 19(1), 3–19. http://doi.org/10.1177/1468796818791661

55.

Pew Research Center. (2013, June 6). In gay marriage debate, both supporters and opponents see legal recognition as “inevitable.” https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2013/06/06/in-gay-marriage-debate-both-supporters-and-opponents-see-legal-recognition-as-inevitable/

56.

Powell

Kim

A. D.

Smaldino

P. E.

(2022). Hashtags as signals of political identity: #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter. SocArXiv Papers. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/tqs2x/

57.

Raskin

J. D.

(2020, October 7). From the president: Can humanistic psychology heal the world? https://www.apadivisions.org/division-32/news-events/humanistic-psychology-healing

58.

Reed

Aquino

K. F.

(2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), Article 1270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1270

59.

Richardson

Conway

(2022). Standing up or giving up? Moral foundations mediate political differences in evaluations of BLACK LIVES MATTER and other protests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 553–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2837

60.

Robinson

(2021). A radical arc in systematically documenting political context in advocacy evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(171), 95–117.

61.

Rothmund

Becker

Jost

J. T.

(2016). The psychology of social justice in political thought and action. In Sabbagh

Schmitt

(Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 275–293). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_15

62.

Roy

Goldwasser

(2021, June). Analysis of nuanced stances and sentiment towards entities of US politicians through the lens of moral foundation theory. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media (pp. 1–3). https://aclanthology.org/2021.socialnlp-1.1/

63.

Rozier

M. D.

Singer

P. M.

(2021). The good and evil of health policy: Medicaid expansion, republican governors, and moral intuitions. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 12(3), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1863506

64.

Saleem

Morrill

Karter

J. M.

(2021). Introduction to the special issue on radical humanism, critical consciousness, and social change. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(6), 851–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167819878912

65.

Saucier

(2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.78.2.366

66.

Shields

J. A.

Dunn

J. M.

Sr (2016). Passing on the right: Conservative professors in the progressive university. Oxford University Press.

67.

Silver

J. R.

Silver

(2017). Why are conservatives more punitive than liberals? A moral foundations approach. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000232

68.

Simon

(2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford University Press.

69.

Smith

C. E.

(2019). Blue Lives Matter versus Black Lives Matter: Beneficial social policies as the path away from punitive rhetoric and harm. Vermont Law Review, 44, 463–491. https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/past-issues/volume-44/volume-44-book-3/

70.

Solomon

Martin

(2019). Competitive victimhood as a lens to reconciliation: An analysis of the black lives matter and blue lives matter movements. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 37(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21262

71.

Thusi

(2020). Blue lives & the permanence of racism. Cornell Law Review, 105, 14. Online. https://www.cornelllawreview.org/2020/03/03/blue-lives-the-permanence-of-racism/

72.

Voelkel

J. G.

Brandt

M. J.

(2019). The effect of ideological identification on the endorsement of moral values depends on the target group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(6), 851–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218798822

73.

von Hippel

Buss

D. M

. (2017). Do ideologically driven scientific agendas impede understanding and acceptance of evolutionary principles in social psychology? In Crawford

J. T.

Jussim

(Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 7–25). Psychology Press.

74.

Weber

(2019). Ideology and values in political decision making. Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.998

75.

West

Greenland

van Laar

(2021). Implicit racism, colour blindness, and narrow definitions of discrimination: Why some White people prefer “All Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter.” British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), 1136–1153. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12458

76.

Wetherell

Reyna

Sadler

(2013). Public option versus the market: Perceived value violations drive opposition to healthcare reform. Political Psychology, 34(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00923.x

77.

Zmigrod

(2020). The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: Theory, evidence, and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.016