Status Quo Change: Bias Differences Between Pro and Con Positions

• The default ideological position is status quo maintaining (Skitka et. al., 2002), and people typically perceive more self-interest in arguements undermining rather than maintaining the status quo (O’Brien & Crandall, 2005). However, it is not known how people pro status quo change perceive those disagree rather than agree with themselves. In three studies the current research explored how individuals pro and con a status quo change on a controversial issue (e. g., gay couples’ right to child adoption, prohibition of religious symbols in schools) perceived the externality and rationality of preferences among those who agreed and disagreed with their own preference (Kenworthy & Miller, 2002). In all three studies, individuals pro- as compared to con a status quo change showed more bias, that is more perceived externality and less rationality behind preferences of those disagreeing rather than agreeing with themselves. Individuals pro status quo change were more biased when a decision on the target issue was made that concorded rather than discorded with their own preference, whereas those against a change showed more bias with a discordant decision outcome. Because status quo is default position, people who challenge it take a risk, possibly inducing threat feelings which should increase biases (Stephan et. al., 2002). A concordant decision outcome in this situation may have a validating function, boosting self-enhancement and increase biases (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Subject headings

SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP  -- Psykologi (hsv//swe)

SOCIAL SCIENCES  -- Psychology (hsv//eng)

Keyword

bias differences

status quo

Psychology

Psykologi

Psychology

psykologi

Publication and Content Type

vet (subject category)

kon (subject category)