Are liberals their own worst enemy?
A new study
suggests that may be the case, with its examination of why some political movements succeed and
others fail.
The study showed that liberals overestimate the
uniqueness of their political beliefs and that they are eager to have views
that set them apart from others -- characteristics that might undermine their
ability to maintain a cohesive political movement.
The psychologists behind the study said their
findings may explain why the Tea Party movement succeeded
in gaining lasting traction, while "Occupy Wall
Street" fizzled out.
“The Tea Party movement developed a succinct set of
goals in its incipient stages and effectively mobilized its members toward
large-scale social change quite quickly,” study co-author Chadly Stern, a
doctoral student in psychology at New York University, said in a written
statement.
“In contrast, despite its popularity, the liberal Occupy Wall Street movement struggled to
reach agreement on their collective mission and
ultimately failed to enact large-scale social change.”
For the study, the psychologists surveyed 300 men
and women between the ages of 18 and 82. The participants indicated agreement
or disagreement with political statements, such as "I support labor
unions," and non-political statements, such as "I like coffee."
They were also asked to estimate how many people
with the same political ideology would agree with their beliefs and
preferences.
And, what pray tell did the study show?
Liberals displayed "truly
false uniqueness," underestimating the number of other liberals who
shared their same beliefs. Moderates and conservatives showed "truly
false consensus."
That means they overestimated agreement with their
beliefs and preferences among their peers, thinking that their own views were
more common than they really were.
These effects extended across the board, regardless
of whether the questions were about politics or the cup of coffee they were
drinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment