Recently I read a paper written by Lucian Gideon Conway, Meredith A. Repkea and Shannon C. Houck under the name "Donald Trump as a Cultural Revolt Against Perceived Communication Restriction: Priming Political Correctness Norms Causes More Trump Support".
One of the main arguments of the paper is that "Political correct norms" as for example, using communication perceived as inclusive when it comes to minority groups can:
1) result in the reduction of the amount of negative communication in the short term
2) may produce more support for negative communication in the long term.
The paper provides evidence for what researchers describe as norms that are designed to increase the overall amount of positive communication can actually "backfire" by increasing support for a politician who uses extremely negative language that explicitly violates the norm.
In my view, one thing that paper is describing is the current situation of polarisation and radicalisation of US political development. One fact is that Donald Trump won the presidency also by using political communication often described as racist, sexist and xenophobic.
According to the paper, one explanation for Trump’s success involves a socio-historical discussion that is essentially exclusive to conservative American politics where evidence suggests that increased authoritarianism, increased social dominance, and lower cognitive abilities were all predictive of Trump support during
the election.
In their general discussion, the researchers conclude that their results provide support for a connection between the salience of restrictive communication norms and support for Trump.
For example, participants who had the interests to think about and focus on the restrictive communication norms during the presidential campaign showed more support for Trump than participants who were not so primed.
For more information about the paper, click on the following link.
One of the main arguments of the paper is that "Political correct norms" as for example, using communication perceived as inclusive when it comes to minority groups can:
1) result in the reduction of the amount of negative communication in the short term
2) may produce more support for negative communication in the long term.
The paper provides evidence for what researchers describe as norms that are designed to increase the overall amount of positive communication can actually "backfire" by increasing support for a politician who uses extremely negative language that explicitly violates the norm.
In my view, one thing that paper is describing is the current situation of polarisation and radicalisation of US political development. One fact is that Donald Trump won the presidency also by using political communication often described as racist, sexist and xenophobic.
According to the paper, one explanation for Trump’s success involves a socio-historical discussion that is essentially exclusive to conservative American politics where evidence suggests that increased authoritarianism, increased social dominance, and lower cognitive abilities were all predictive of Trump support during
the election.
In their general discussion, the researchers conclude that their results provide support for a connection between the salience of restrictive communication norms and support for Trump.
For example, participants who had the interests to think about and focus on the restrictive communication norms during the presidential campaign showed more support for Trump than participants who were not so primed.
For more information about the paper, click on the following link.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar