Abstract
ABSTRACT Guided by social identity theory, this study sought to understand how ingroup biases relating to political identity moderates the relationship between individuals’ judgments of a politician’s credibility and their perceived partisan ambivalence when they are exposed to news coverage about a politician who addresses their sexual misconduct allegations. A total of 198 participants were randomly assigned in a 2 by 2 between-subjects posttest-only factorial design. Results indicated that individuals who viewed the news story about a politician in their ingroup were more likely to perceive them as credible, and express higher levels of partisan ambivalence than those who viewed the story about an outgroup politician. In addition, the moderation effects suggest that despite problematic behaviors, politicians still receive significant support from their ingroup members, which has the potential to influence political outcomes in reality. Implications of the findings are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
