“Terrorist” or “Mentally Ill”: Motivated Biases Rooted in Partisanship Shape Attributions About Violent Actors
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Authors
We investigated whether motivated reasoning rooted in partisanship affects the attributions individuals make about violent attackers’ underlying motives and group memberships. Study 1 demonstrated that on the day of the Brexit referendum pro-leavers (vs. pro-remainers) attributed an exculpatory (i.e., mental health) versus condemnatory (i.e., terrorism) motive to the killing of a pro-remain politician. Study 2 demonstrated that pro-immigration (vs. anti-immigration) perceivers in Germany ascribed a mental health (vs. terrorism) motive to a suicide attack by a Syrian refugee, predicting lower endorsement of punitiveness against his group (i.e., refugees) as a whole. Study 3 experimentally manipulated target motives, showing that Americans distanced a politically motivated (vs. mentally ill) violent individual from their in-group and assigned him harsher punishment—patterns most pronounced among high-group identifiers.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Social Psychological and Personality Science |
Volume | 10 |
Issue number | 4 |
Pages (from-to) | 485-493 |
Number of pages | 9 |
ISSN | 1948-5506 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 01.05.2019 |
Externally published | Yes |
- attributions, mental illness, motivated reasoning, punitiveness, terrorism
- Social Work and Social Pedagogics