An Examination of Aggressive Beliefs and Attitudes in Relation to Political Affiliation and Candidate Endorsement in the United States

Abstract

Social cognition provides insight into why Americans are largely divided with strong partisan rifts. The purpose of this set of studies was to examine social cognitive forms of aggression in relation to political party affiliation and political candidate endorsement. In Study 1 (N = 1,657), all forms of aggressive social cognitions (hostile attribution, potency, retribution, victimization by powerful others, derogation of target, and social discounting) were significantly associated with one or more political parties in some respect (Democrat, Republican, Independent). In Study 2 (N = 579), participants who endorsed Bernie Sanders reported higher scores on victimization, while participants who endorsed Donald Trump reported scores high on potency (social cognitive forms of aggression were unrelated to support for Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz beyond political ideology). Results suggest that current political division goes beyond mere differences in political ideology as fundamental aggression-related individual differences appear to covary with how partisans see political parties and primary candidates. Implications include the potential application of our findings to better managing political interpersonal dynamics. For example, knowing that divergent political beliefs and behaviors are associated with fundamental differences in how people perceive the same stimuli may ease partisan hostility, facilitate dialog, and increase willingness to compromise.