PreprintPDF Available

Ideology and Perceptions of Group Differences: Data Report for the Equalitarianism Scale

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

This is a data report for a scale that is in development called the Equalitarianism Scale, which measures perceptions of group differences. The data reported here are from 8 studies (n=3274) that tested other hypotheses, but that also included the Equalitarianism Scale. This scale contains 18 items measuring five highly related assumptions about group differences: (1) all groups are equal on all traits and abilities (a belief we call cosmic egalitarianism), (2) prejudice is ubiquitous in modern society, (3) the only reason groups differ is due to prejudice and discrimination, (4) anyone who asserts that groups differ biologically is justifying their own prejudices, and (5) we can and should make all groups equal in society, alpha= .92. The entire scale strongly correlates with more liberal ideology, r = .54, p<.001.
!
!
!
!
Ideology!and!Perceptions!of!Group!Differences:!Data!Report!for!the!Equalitarianism!Scale!
!
!
!
Bo!M!Winegard!
!
Marietta!College!
!
bmw002@marrieta.edu!
!
!
Cory!J!Clark!
!
Durham!University!
!
cory.j.clark@durham.ac.uk!
!
!
!
!
This!data!report!may!be!cited!as:!
Winegard,!B.M.!&!Clark,!C.J.!(2019).!Ideology(and(perceptions(of(group(differences:(Data(report(
for(the(equalitarianism(scale.!Unpublished!manuscript.!
!
The!data!reported!here!may!or!may!not!be!used!in!future!published!work.!
! !
This!is!a!data!report!for!a!scale!that!is!in!development!called!the!Equalitarianism!Scale,!
which!measures!perceptions!of!group!differences.!The!data!reported!here!are!from!8!studies!
(n=3274!mechanical!turk!workers)(that!tested!other!hypotheses,!but!that!also!included!the!
Equalitarianism!Scale.!Results!of!those!studies!regarding!the!specific!hypotheses!they!were!
testing!can!be!found!in!Winegard,!Clark,!Hasty,!and!Baumeister!(2018).!!This!scale!contains!18!
items!measuring!five!highly!related!assumptions!about!group!differences:!(1)!all!groups!are!
equal!on!all!traits!and!abilities!(a!belief!we!call!cosmic!egalitarianism),!(2)!prejudice!is!
ubiquitous!in!modern!society,!(3)!the!only!reason!groups!differ!is!due!to!prejudice!and!
discrimination,!(4)!anyone!who!asserts!that!groups!differ!biologically!is!justifying!their!own!
prejudices,!and!!(5)!we!can!and!should!make!all!groups!equal!in!society,!each!rated!on!7-point!
scales!from!Do(not(agree(at(all!to!Completely(agree,!
a
!=!.92.!The!scale!is!presented!below.!
Following!that,!we!present!results!regarding!how!this!scale!relates!to!self-reported!political!
ideology!(reported!on!a!7-point!scale!from!Very(conservative!to!Very(liberal).!The!entire!scale!
strongly!correlates!with!more!liberal!ideology,!r!=!.54,!p<.001.!
!
All!data!will!be!made!publicly!available!upon!publication!of!Winegard,!Clark,!Hasty,!and!
Baumeister!(2019;!a!shortened!version!of!the!2018!paper).!But!we!may!share!data!with!
individuals!or!perform!requested!analyses!at!our!discretion.!Requests!should!be!emailed!to!
either!of!the!two!authors.!
!
Equalitarianism,Scale,
Instructions:!Please!answer!the!following!questions!as!honestly!as!you!can.!Remember,!all!
answers!will!be!confidential.!Use!the!following!scale!1-!do!not!agree!all,!4-somewhat!agree,!7-
agree!completely!(so!1!is!the!lowest!level!of!agreement,!and!7!is!the!highest.)!!
!
1.!The!only!reason!there!are!differences!between!men!and!women!is!because!society!is!sexist!
2.!Differences!between!men!and!women!in!society!are!caused!by!discrimination!
3.!Differences!between!ethnic!groups!in!society!are!caused!by!discrimination!
4.!Most!people!are!not!biased!and!racism!is!not!a!problem!anymore*!
5.!When!people!assert!that!men!and!women!are!different!because!of!biology,!they!are!usually!
trying!to!justify!the!status!quo!
6.!People!often!try!to!conceal!their!racism!and!sexism,!but!they!act!that!way!anyways!
7.!People!often!use!biology!to!justify!unjust!policies!that!create!inequalities!
8.!Racism!is!everywhere,!even!though!people!say!they!are!not!racist!
9.!Sexism!is!everywhere,!even!though!people!say!that!they!are!not!sexist!
10.!People!use!scientific!theories!to!justify!inequalities!between!groups!
11.!Men!and!women!have!equal!abilities!on!all!tasks!(for!example,!mathematics,!cooking,!
nursing)!
12.!All!ethnic!groups!have!equal!abilities!on!all!tasks!(for!example,!mathematics,!sports,!
creativity)!
13.!Some!differences!between!men!and!women!are!hardwired*!
14.!Although!things!are!unequal!now,!if!we!work!really!hard,!we!can!make!society!better!and!
more!fair!
15.!We!should!strive!to!make!all!groups!equal!in!society!
16.!We!should!strive!to!make!men!and!women!equally!represented!in!science!fields!
17.!If!we!work!hard!enough,!we!can!ensure!that!all!ethnic!groups!have!equal!outcomes!
18.!Differences!among!ethnic!groups!in!social!outcomes!are!at!least!partially!biologically!
caused*!
!
*Reverse!coded!items!
*Note!that!in!one!of!the!eight!included!studies!(n=205),!items!4!and!18!were!not!included,!so!
these!items!have!a!slightly!smaller!n.!
!
Results!
!
! In!the!table!below,!for!each!scale!item,!we!report!the!correlation!with!more!liberal!
ideology,!the!Ms!and!SDs!and!ns!for!Conservatives!(those!who!responded!1-3!on!ideology),!
Moderates!(those!who!responded!4),!and!Liberals!(those!who!responded!5-7).!In!ANOVAs!(Fs[2,!
3062-3270]>61.48,!ps<.001)!with!Bonferroni!post-hoc!tests,!the!means!for!Conservatives,!
Moderates,!and!Liberals!all!significantly!differed!on!all!18!items,(ps<.001.!The!only!exception!
was!Conservatives!and!Moderates!on!item!18,!which!significantly!differed!at!p=.012.!So,!
Liberals!agreed!with!every!single!item!significantly!more!than!Moderates,!who!agreed!with!
every!single!item!significantly!more!than!Conservatives.!Note!that!the!reported!Ms!for!the!
three!reversed!items!are!the!reversed!Ms.!
!
Immediately!following!the!table!reporting!the!correlations!with!ideology!as!well!as!the!
descriptives!for!Conservatives,!Moderates,!and!Liberals,!we!pasted!crosstabs!tables!reporting!
the!exact!number!of!participants!(and!the!percentages)!within!each!of!the!seven!ideological!
groups!that!gave!each!(7-point)!numeric!response!of!agreement!with!each!of!the!18!statements!
(1=(Do(not(agree(at(all;!7=Completely(agree).!!Each!crosstabs!table!is!numbered!to!correspond!
with!the!scale!item,!and!the!exact!phrasing!of!the!scale!item!is!displayed!in!the!upper!left!
corner!of!each!table.!Note!that!the!reported!percentages!are!the!percentage!of!participants!
within!that!ideological!group!that!gave!that!particular!response!(i.e.,!they!are!not!the!
percentage!of!participants!within(that!particular!response!who!belong!to!that!particular!
ideological!group,!though!you!should!be!able!to!compute!that!percentage!yourself!from!the!
provided!absolute!numbers).!So,!for!example,!for!item!#1,!the!48.2%!among!‘Very!Conservative’!
who!responded!‘1’!(topmost!left!corner!cell)!indicates!that!48.2%!of!those!who!identify!as!‘Very!
Conservative’!responded!‘1’!(and!not!that!48.2%!of!those!who!responded!‘1’!were!‘Very!
Conservative’).!
!
Note!also!for!these!crosstabs!tables,!the!reverse!scored!items!are!not!reverse!scored,!so!
agreement!is!with!the!exact!phrasing!of!the!item!reported!in!the!upper!left!corner.!!Our!
apologies!for!merely!pasting!SPSS!output!into!this!document!rather!than!creating!prettier!tables!
ourselves.!Several!people!requested!this!data!report!so!we!figured!sooner!was!more!important!
than!prettier.!If!anything!is!difficult!to!interpret,!please!let!us!know!and!we!will!amend!to!make!
it!clearer.!Enjoy.! !
Item%
Correlation%with%
liberalism%
Conservatives%
Moderates%
Liberals%
!
r"
p"
SD"
M"
SD"
M"
SD"
n"
1.!The!only!reason!there!are!differences!between!men!
and!women!is!because!society!is!sexist!
.34!
<.001!
1.71!
3.55!
1.80!
4.19!
1.86!
1647!
2.!Differences!between!men!and!women!in!society!are!
caused!by!discrimination!
.41!
<.001!
1.73!
4.17!
1.65!
4.93!
1.59!
1647!
3.!Differences!among!ethnic!groups!in!society!are!
caused!by!discrimination!
.44!
<.001!
1.68!
4.57!
1.62!
5.31!
1.47!
1647!
4.!Most!people!are!not!biased!and!racism!is!not!a!
problem!anymore!(reversed)!
.36!
<.001!
1.69!
5.24!
1.59!
5.91!
1.44!
1561!
5.!When!people!assert!that!men!and!women!are!
different!because!of!biology,!they!are!usually!trying!to!
justify!the!status!quo!
.35!
<.001!
1.72!
3.93!
1.71!
4.70!
1.71!
1647!
6.!People!often!try!to!conceal!their!racism!and!sexism,!
but!they!act!that!way!anyways!
.32!
<.001!
1.59!
4.49!
1.52!
5.17!
1.43!
1647!
7.!People!often!use!biology!to!justify!unjust!policies!that!
create!inequalities!
.32!
<.001!
1.64!
4.48!
1.61!
5.10!
1.61!
1647!
8.!Racism!is!everywhere,!even!though!people!say!they!
are!not!racist!
.37!
<.001!
1.78!
4.95!
1.66!
5.67!
1.38!
1647!
9.!Sexism!is!everywhere,!even!though!people!say!that!
they!are!not!sexist!
.39!
<.001!
1.73!
4.83!
1.59!
5.55!
1.37!
1647!
10.!People!use!scientific!theories!to!justify!inequalities!
between!groups!
.22!
<.001!
1.57!
4.45!
1.54!
4.79!
1.63!
1647!
11.!Men!and!women!have!equal!abilities!on!all!tasks!(for!
example,!mathematics,!cooking,!nursing)!
.27!
<.001!
1.93!
4.75!
1.80!
5.26!
1.76!
1647!
12.!All!ethnic!groups!have!equal!abilities!on!all!tasks!(for!
example,!mathematics,!sports,!creativity)!
.26!
<.001!
1.91!
4.88!
1.78!
5.34!
1.74!
1647!
13.!Some!differences!between!men!and!women!are!
hardwired!(reversed)!
.29!
<.001!
1.43!
3.06!
1.54!
3.59!
1.71!
1647!
14.!Although!things!are!unequal!now,!if!we!work!really!
hard,!we!can!make!society!better!and!more!fair!
.41!
<.001!
1.70!
5.01!
1.58!
5.79!
1.25!
1647!
15.!We!should!strive!to!make!all!groups!equal!in!society!
.45!
<.001!
1.89!
5.31!
1.64!
6.07!
1.25!
1647!
16.!We!should!strive!to!make!men!and!women!equally!
represented!in!science!fields!
.40!
<.001!
1.88!
5.34!
1.62!
6.10!
1.26!
1647!
17.!If!we!work!hard!enough,!we!can!ensure!that!all!
ethnic!groups!have!equal!outcomes!
.40!
<.001!
1.80!
4.97!
1.60!
5.60!
1.41!
1647!
18.!Differences!among!ethnic!groups!in!social!outcomes!
are!at!least!partially!biologically!caused!(reversed)!
.23!
<.001!
1.65!
4.36!
1.61!
4.86!
1.71!
1561!
1. !
!
2. !
!
3. !
!
4. !
!
5. !
!
6. !
!
7.!
!
8.
!
9.!
!
10.!
!
11.!
!
12.!
!
!
13.!
!
14.!
!
15.!
!
!
16.!
!
17.!
!
18.!
!"#"$"%&"'(
(
)*%"+,$-.(/010.(23,$4.(20(50.(6,'78.(20(!0.(9(/,:;"*'7"$.(!0(<0(=>?@AB0(!"#$%&'$(&$)&*+,-.-*/#(01-/2-
%&31($%-3&$*4(C%D:E3*'F"-(;,%:'&$*D70(
)*%"+,$-.(/010.(23,$4.(20(50.(6,'78.(20(!0.(9(/,:;"*'7"$.(!0(<0(=>?@GB0(5/67*'$'#*-8(/#9*-$*-$-
:/+$&)-/2-%&31($%-3&$*4(1,%:'&$*D7(':E;*77"-(#H$(D:E3*&,7*H%0(
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Recent scholarship has challenged the long-held assumption in the social sciences that Conservatives are more biased than Liberals, yet little work deliberately explores domains of liberal bias. Here, we demonstrate that Liberals are particularly prone to bias about victims’ groups (e.g. Blacks, women) and identify a set of beliefs that consistently predict this bias, termed Equalitarianism. Equalitarianism, we believe, stems from an aversion to inequality and a desire to protect relatively low status groups, and includes three interrelated beliefs: (1) demographic groups do not differ biologically; (2) prejudice is ubiquitous and explains existing group disparities; (3) society can, and should, make all groups equal in society. This leads to bias against information that portrays a perceived privileged group more favorably than a perceived victims’ group. Eight studies (n=3,274) support this theory. Liberalism was associated with perceiving certain groups as victims (Studies 1a-1b). In Studies 2-7 and meta-analyses, Liberals evaluated the same study as less credible when the results concluded that a privileged group (men and Whites) had a more desirable quality relative to a victims’ group (women and Blacks) than vice versa. Ruling out alternative explanations of Bayesian (or other normative) reasoning, significant order effects in within-subjects designs in Studies 6 and 7 suggest that Liberals believe they should not evaluate identical information differently depending on which group is portrayed more favorably, yet do so. In all studies, higher equalitarianism mediated the relationship between more liberal ideology and lower credibility ratings when privileged groups were said to score higher on a socially valuable trait. Although not predicted a priori, meta-analyses also revealed Moderates to be the most balanced in their judgments. These findings indicate nothing about whether this bias is morally justifiable, only that it exists.