Ideological symmetry in prejudice (#175)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Mark Brandt. Ideological symmetry in prejudice. (2014, January 13). Retrieved 16:11, October 22, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTc1

MLA Style

"Ideological symmetry in prejudice" Mark Brandt. 13 Jan 2014 09:46 22 Oct 2017, 16:11 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTc1>

MHRA Style

'Ideological symmetry in prejudice', Mark Brandt, , 13 January 2014 09:46 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTc1> [accessed 22 October 2017]

Chicago Style

"Ideological symmetry in prejudice", Mark Brandt, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTc1 (accessed October 22, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Ideological symmetry in prejudice [Internet]. Mark Brandt; 2014 Jan 13, 09:46 [cited 2017 Oct 22]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTc1

Reference to Original Report of Finding Chambers, J. R., Schlenker, B. R., & Collisson, B. (2013). Ideology and Prejudice The Role of Value Conflicts. Psychological science, 24(2), 140-149.
Title Ideological symmetry in prejudice
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Study 1, Sample 1
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Chambers and colleagues found that liberal participants rated liberal groups more positively than conservative groups, whereas conservative showed the opposite bias. The was quantified by a significant interaction (p<.001)
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Successful Replication
Difference? Same Direction, .000000000
Number of Subjects 189
Number of Subjects in Original Study 99
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2013
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Mark Brandt
Detailed Description of Method/Results A HIT on Mturk was opened for 300 participants from the United States with an acceptance rate of 90% or higher. Once the 300 HITs are completed, the HIT was closed. Participants were paid $0.40. Analyses were conducted on participants who completed the necessary measures, who indicated they are citizens of the United States, who speak English as their primary language, and who reported being White/European American.

The procedure largely followed the procedure described in Study 1, Sample 1 of Chambers et al (2013). Participants completed a survey via Qualtrics. After reading an information sheet, participants “indicate the perceived political ideology of several groups. The groups were the same used in Chambers et al, except "civil rights leaders" which was omitted by mistake. For each group participants were asked What is the political ideology of..€ and were given a five-point scale with the labels: Strong Liberal, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Strong Conservative.

Following the judgments of political ideologies, participants were asked to œindicate your impression of several groups.€ The groups were the same as the judgments of ideology. For each group participants were asked €œWhat is your impression of.. and were given a five-point scale with the labels: Strongly Dislike, Dislike, Neutral, Like, Strongly Like.

Finally, participants completed demographic information, including a branching question used to assess participants political ideology (Chambers et al did not use this same branching question, but instead a conceptually similar single item measure). First participants were asked if they are liberal, conservative, moderate, or something else. Then they were asked the degree to which they are liberal or conservative, or if they indicated they were moderate or something else whether they lean liberal or conservative in their beliefs. After recoding, this results in a nine-point political ideology measure ranging from 1 strongly liberal to 9 strong conservative. The additional demographic questions include gender, race/ethnicity, education level, age, income, English as primary language, and U.S. citizen.

The key interaction between group ideology and participant ideology was significant (F[1, 187] = 172.06, p < .001). When assessing liberal groups there was a strong significant effect of participant ideology (Liberals M = 3.38, SD = .46; Conservative M = 2.78, SD = .56; d = 1.16, p < .001; original d = 1.23). When assessing conservative groups there was a strong significant effect of participant ideology in the opposite direction (Liberals M = 2.87, SD = .51; Conservative M = 3.68, SD = .39; d = 1.61, p < .001; original d = 1.22).

In addition the interaction, there was a main effect. Participants also tended to report greater liking for the liberal target groups (F[1, 187] = 13.10, p < .001)
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
The measure of political ideology was measured in a slightly different, though conceptually identical manner.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Mark Brandt
Location of ProjectMTurk
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Adults tested through internet
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published