Solomon Erin D, Hackathorn Jana M, Crittendon David
a Washington University in St. Louis.
b Murray State University.
J Soc Psychol. 2019;159(1):61-74. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2018.1453468. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
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.
随着政治丑闻数量的增加，我们研究了可能影响政治家因丑闻而受到评判方式的各种情况。具体而言，我们假设内群体偏见理论和标准转移理论会产生不同的评判模式。在两项研究中，我们发现了对内群体偏见理论的支持，即如果虚构的政治家是参与者自己政党的成员（即他们的内群体），那么参与者对其公众认可度和感知到的品格评价会高于该政治家是另一政党成员（即他们的外群体）的情况。这些结果可能部分解释了为什么人们会根据涉事政治家是内群体成员还是外群体成员，对卷入丑闻的政治家评判得或多或少更为严厉。
