Below you can find project overviews for some other lines of research that I am currently preparing for publication.
Ruisch, B. C. The politics of the slippery slope: Ideological differences in logical reasoning and argumentation.
Abstract/Project Overview: In this work, I have been examining ideological differences in argumentation and logical reasoning, particularly regarding the use of “slippery slope” logic – the belief that one ambiguously negative action will cause a chain of increasingly negative downstream outcomes. Analyzing tweets from members of congress and tens of thousands of Twitter users, I find evidence suggesting that political conservatives – both laypeople and elites – are more likely to use slippery slope arguments in political communication. In a series of experimental studies, I find that this is more than a simple rhetorical strategy: more conservative individuals rate slippery slope arguments to be more logical and estimate a higher probability that these negative chains of events will actually occur, both at the societal level (e.g., that relaxing ordinances on lawn care will lead people to neglect other forms of upkeep, and eventually to a decline in quality of life) and at the individual level (e.g., that relaxing one’s diet to have a single cookie today will increase the probability of having multiple cookies tomorrow, and eventually to substantial weight gain).
In ongoing work, I am examining the psychological mechanism behind this effect. Importantly, I predict that these differences do not result from ideological differences in logical reasoning style or ability; rather, I anticipate that they stem from conflicting views of human nature. That is, conservatives have a more pessimistic view of human nature, which serves as the causal “engine” that propels these anticipated chains of negative events (leading them to believe, e.g., that a relaxation of restrictions will embolden subsequent bad behavior). In future work, I will investigate whether these ideological asymmetries in slippery slope thinking can explain some of the ideological conflict over certain political issues – particularly those that are viewed as “watershed” changes that might lead to further changes downstream (e.g., transgender rights; relaxing of abortion laws).
Ruisch, B. C. The psychological toll of the culture wars: The effects of asymmetric intergroup conflict on psychological motivations and support for extrajudicial political action.
In this research, I am investigating how the (perceived) intergroup dynamics of the “culture wars” differentially impact liberals’ and conservatives’ psychological motivations and cognitive style. Consistent with past work, I find that both liberals and conservatives perceive a strong conflict with the opposing ideological group, and seek to advance their group’s relative position within that conflict. However, I find that people – both liberals and conservatives alike – generally perceive that liberals have the upper hand in this conflict: people see society as becoming more liberal over time, and believe that the number of political conservatives is dwindling. This gives rise to a sense of existential threat among conservatives, who express greater concern about the continued existence of their ideological ingroup. This sense of threat, in turn, motivates conservatives to express greater support for extreme action to advance the position of their political group, such as extrajudicial and obstructionist political actions. Further, I find evidence that this perceived existential threat may also impact more basic forms of cognition among conservatives, heightening need for cognitive closure and sensitivity to threat. These findings challenge theoretical models that have argued for a unidirectional relationship between psychological motivations and political ideology. While past work has shown that needs for safety and certainty can shape a person’s ideology, I find that a person’s ideology can also shape these same psychological needs. This work suggests that some of the apparent psychological differences between those of opposing ideologies may actually stem from more basic social cognitive processes related to intergroup conflict that are common to both liberals and conservatives.
Ruisch, B. C. & Ferguson, M. J. Negativity bias and the genesis of punitiveness.
[overview and working paper coming soon]