Past research shows that people like others who are similar to themselves, and that political partisans tend to dislike those with opposing viewpoints. Two studies examined how initial person impressions changed after discovering that the target held similar or dissimilar political beliefs. Using potential mates as targets, we found that participants liked targets less, were less romantically interested in targets, and rated targets as less attractive after discovering political dissimilarity with them. Further, they became more uncomfortable with targets after discovering ideological dissimilarity. Theoretical implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Although the adage “opposites attract” may characterize lay understandings of attraction, empirical evidence consistently finds that people tend to like similar others over dissimilar others (
Attitudinal dissimilarity is a particularly strong interpersonal repellant (
Before individuals form opinions of others, they must consider factors indicating that the other person is similar or dissimilar. Political ideology is a particularly salient marker of value dissimilarity (
Additionally, some evidence suggests that political dissimilarity is more important to disliking than other forms of dissimilarity.
Similarity is especially important in attraction and close relationships (
Additionally, people experience unpleasant affective and cognitive reactions upon encountering dissimilar or unfamiliar others (
Some attitudes change more easily than others. In particular, unfavorable information tends to hold more weight in impression formation than does favorable information (
Additionally, although some work suggests that conservatives express more antipathy than liberals (e.g.,
Further, implications of value dissimilarity extend beyond the realm of liking or disliking. Particularly, physical attractiveness is the largest determinant of how much a person likes, wants to get to know, and attempts to date a potential target (
Further,
The present work had five primary objectives. First, we sought to examine how attitudes toward dissimilar others
The present studies used an online dating paradigm to determine whether individuals’ impressions of a potential romantic partner become more negative after discovering that the person holds dissimilar political beliefs, and whether psychological discomfort partially explains this attitude change. Specifically, we hypothesized that after discovering that a potential romantic partner is politically dissimilar, liberals and conservatives will like the target less, become less romantically interested in the target, find the target less attractive, and become more psychologically uncomfortable than before they discovered political dissimilarity with the target. We expect to find the reverse pattern for politically similar targets. Importantly, we expect that these effects will be roughly symmetrical among liberals and conservatives, although we will explore any differences in their responses.
We attempt to replicate important effects on similarity and liking, as well as provide further support for the idea that the link between ideological dissimilarity and disliking is roughly symmetrical across the political right and left. The studies also attempt to expand on past work by considering changes in attitudes after receiving political information, implicit evaluations of physical attractiveness, and psychological discomfort, which could provide a more nuanced understanding of the well-established relationship between similarity and liking.
We recruited 303 U.S. residents via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in the fall of 2014 who were paid 50 cents for their participation. Sixty-one participants incorrectly identified the political ideology of the target they viewed,ii leaving a sample of 242 participants (
Participants learned they would view a person’s online dating profile. They first indicated whether they were in a romantic relationship, and they were instructed not to consider their own relationship status when evaluating the person. They then reported their gender and romantic preferences. Based on their indicated romantic preferences, they were directed to a male or female dating profile, and were randomly assigned to a liberal (
After each phase, participants rated the extent to which they would like to meet the target, go on a date with the target, and thought the target would be a good romantic partner (1 =
Lastly, participants reported their age, race/ethnicity, political ideology on a single item self-report scale (1 =
We calculated attitude change for overall liking, romantic interest, and attractiveness by subtracting participants’ average ratings from Phases 1 and 2 (before discovering target political information) from Phases 3 and 4 (after discovering target political information), such that positive values indicate increased liking and negative values indicate decreased liking.
Study Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Participant Ideology | |||||
2. Overall Liking Difference | .07 | – | |||
3. Romantic Interest Difference | .02 | .85*** | – | ||
4. Attractiveness Difference | .21** | .55*** | .51*** | – | |
5. Discomfort | -.17* | -.28*** | -.10 | -.28*** | – |
3.14 | -.18 | -.41 | -.11 | 1.68 | |
1.51 | 1.36 | 1.26 | 1.15 | 1.18 |
*
To ensure that participants who correctly identified the target truly were paying attention, we conducted a t-test to see whether participants who viewed an ideologically similar target (matched participants) rated the target as generally more similar to themselves after receiving political information than did participants who viewed an ideologically dissimilar target (mismatched participants). This check by necessity excluded moderates (as there was no moderate target). Before receiving political information, matched and mismatched participants did not differ in their ratings of their similarity to the target,
We hypothesized that participants’ impressions of a potential romantic partner would become more negative after discovering that the target held dissimilar political beliefs and more positive after discovering that the target held similar political beliefs. We used moderated multiple regression to test the study hypotheses and mean-centered the participant ideology and target ideology variables. Since target ideology was a binary variable, we added or subtracted the proportion of participants in each condition to probe the interactions that included that variable (
Predictor | Step 1 |
Step 2 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | β | |||||||||
Panel A: Overall Liking Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | -0.18 | 0.10 | -1.71† | -.17 | .09 | -1.90† | ||||
Target Ideology | -.75 | .21 | -.28 | -3.60*** | .08 | -.74 | -.18 | -.27 | -4.03*** | .07 |
Participant Ideology | .06 | .07 | .06 | .82 | .00 | .06 | .06 | .07 | 1.06 | .01 |
Participant × Target | .83 | .12 | .46 | 6.82 | .21 | |||||
.08** | .29*** | |||||||||
Panel B: Romantic Interest Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | -.41 | .10 | -4.18*** | -.38 | .08 | -4.61*** | ||||
Target Ideology | -.74 | .20 | -.30 | -3.80*** | .09 | -.77 | .17 | -.31 | -4.60*** | .09 |
Participant Ideology | .00 | .07 | .00 | .05 | .00 | .01 | .06 | .01 | .15 | .00 |
Participant × Target | .87 | .11 | .51 | 7.67*** | .26 | |||||
.09** | .33*** | |||||||||
Panel C: Attractiveness Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | -.11 | .09 | -1.30 | -.11 | .08 | -1.33 | ||||
Target Ideology | -.56 | .17 | -.25 | -3.28** | .06 | -.56 | .17 | -.25 | -3.35** | .06 |
Participant Ideology | .16 | .06 | .21 | 2.83** | .05 | .16 | .06 | .22 | 2.92** | .05 |
Participant × Target | .33 | .11 | .21 | 2.91** | .05 | |||||
.11*** | .15*** | |||||||||
Panel D: Psychological Discomfort | ||||||||||
Constant | 1.68 | .09 | 18.29*** | 1.68 | .09 | 18.43*** | ||||
Target Ideology | .23 | .18 | .10 | 1.25 | .01 | .23 | .18 | .10 | 1.26 | .01 |
Participant Ideology | -.13 | .06 | -.17 | -2.19* | .03 | -.13 | .06 | -.17 | -2.22* | .03 |
Participant × Target | -.22 | .12 | -.14 | -1.85† | .02 | |||||
.03* | .04* |
†
Target Ideology × Perceiver Ideology interactions on dependent variables for Study 1. Standardized regression coefficients are reported for simple slopes and numbers in parentheses represent standard error.
We tested the intercepts for each condition to examine whether impressions changed significantly (i.e., whether attitude change was significantly different from zero). Conservative participants liked the target marginally less after discovering the target was liberal (
Tests of the intercepts provided support for hypotheses. Conservative participants were significantly less romantically interested in the target after discovering the target was liberal (
Testing the intercepts, conservatives’ changes in rated attractiveness were not significant for either the liberal (
Study 1 revealed qualified support for our hypotheses. As expected, the effects of participant ideology on changes in overall liking, changes in romantic interest, changes in perceived attractiveness, and general psychological discomfort were moderated by target ideology. Consistent with our hypotheses, both liberals and conservatives liked ideologically dissimilar targets less and were less romantically interested in them. However, reduced rated attractiveness emerged among liberals but unexpectedly not conservatives. Additionally, only liberals experienced increased discomfort when presented with an ideologically dissimilar target.
There are two limitations to Study 1 which may explain the observed qualified support for our hypotheses. First, we did not measure changes in psychological discomfort, but rather only measured psychological discomfort toward the end of the experiment. Second, the perceived attractiveness item did not specify “physical” attractiveness. This left open to interpretation whether “attractiveness” referred to the target’s appearance or the target’s general, global attractiveness (e.g., personality). We address both these limitations in Study 2.
The aim of Study 2 was to replicate Study 1, address some of its limitations, and extend our hypotheses to perceived physical attractiveness. First, to address the fact that psychological discomfort was only measured at the end of Study 1, we measured discomfort after all four phases of Study 2. Second, we addressed the measurement of physical attractiveness in two ways: 1) specifically measuring “physical attractiveness” rather than the more general “attractiveness” measured in Study 1; and 2) using a well-validated visual matching task to examine changes in perceived physical attractiveness of the target rather than just self-reported evaluations of the target (
We recruited 365 participants through MTurk in the winter of 2014. Forty participants incorrectly identified the political ideology of the target they viewedvi and 17 participated in Study 1 and were thus excluded from analyses, leaving a sample of 311 (39.2% female; 64% White;
Materials and procedures closely followed those of Study 1. Participants first reported their sex, age, race/ethnicity, romantic relationship status, and romantic preferences, as well as the youngest and oldest ages of people they would consider dating.
Participants then learned they would view and evaluate a person’s dating profile, and were instructed not to consider their own relationship status when evaluating the person. They were randomly assigned to a liberal (
After each phase, participants encountered the same measures used in Study 1 to rate how similar the target was to themselves, their liking of the target, and their own psychological discomfort (α = .98). The same-self report measure was used to assess the target’s attractiveness, except that the item specified
After Phases 1 and 3 only, participants then answered questions testing their memory about the target. During this memory test, participants completed a visual matching task to assess their perceptions of the target’s attractiveness (
After all phases, participants then completed the same romantic interest measure as in Study 1 on a separate page (α = .97). After Phase 4 only, they indicated political dissimilarity with the target. Lastly, they reported the same demographic information as in Study 1, including political ideology.
As in Study 1, change scores were calculated for overall impressions, romantic interest, rated and perceived attractiveness, and psychological discomfort by subtracting average ratings during Phases 1 and 2 from average ratings during Phases 3 and 4. Thus, positive difference scores indicate more liking after learning the target’s political ideology, whereas negative scores indicate less liking.
Study Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Participant Ideology | ||||||
2. Overall Liking Difference | .10† | – | ||||
3. Romantic Interest Difference | .01 | .79*** | – | |||
4. Rated Attractiveness Difference | .08 | .38*** | .34*** | – | ||
5. Perceived Attractiveness Difference | .13* | .02 | .03 | -.08 | – | |
6. Discomfort Difference | -.09 | -.25*** | -.28*** | -.15* | .00 | – |
3.18 | .02 | .05 | .13 | -1.18 | -.06 | |
1.54 | 1.09 | 1.01 | .77 | 21.07 | .65 |
*
We again compared similarity ratings between participants who had matching or mismatching political ideologies with the target they viewed (again, moderates could not be included in this check). Before receiving political information about the target, matched and mismatched participants only marginally differed in their ratings of general similarity to the target,
We hypothesized that participants would like the target less, become less romantically interested in the target, rate and perceive him/her as less physically attractive, and become more uncomfortable after finding out he/she was ideologically dissimilar, but would like the target more, become more romantically interested in him/her, rate and perceive him/her as more physically attractive, and become less uncomfortable after finding out he/she was ideologically similar. To test these hypotheses, we conducted moderated multiple regression analyses on overall liking, romantic interest, rated attractiveness, perceived attractiveness, and psychological discomfort. For all analyses, target ideology (0 = liberal, 1 = conservative) and participant ideology (both mean centered) were entered in Step 1, and the Target Ideology × Perceiver Ideology interaction was entered in Step 2 (
Predictor | Step 1 |
Step 2 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | β | |||||||||
Panel A: Overall Liking Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | .02 | .06 | .38 | .03 | .06 | .52 | ||||
Target Ideology | -.44 | .12 | -.20 | -3.59*** | .04 | -.46 | .11 | -.21 | -4.21*** | .04 |
Participant Ideology | .07 | .04 | .10 | 1.75† | .01 | .09 | .04 | .12 | 2.38** | .01 |
Participant × Target | .57 | .07 | .40 | 7.82*** | .16 | |||||
.05*** | .21*** | |||||||||
Panel B: Romantic Interest Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | .05 | .06 | .80 | .05 | .05 | 1.01 | ||||
Target Ideology | -.29 | .12 | -.14 | -2.47* | .02 | -.28 | .10 | -.14 | -2.67** | .02 |
Participant Ideology | .01 | .04 | .01 | .14 | .00 | .02 | .03 | .03 | .50 | .00 |
Participant × Target | .57 | .07 | .43 | 8.27*** | .18 | |||||
.02* | .20*** | |||||||||
Panel C: Rated Attractiveness Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | .13 | .04 | 3.00** | .13 | .04 | 3.11** | ||||
Target Ideology | -.28 | .09 | -.18 | -3.19** | .03 | -.28 | .09 | -.18 | -3.21** | .02 |
Participant Ideology | .04 | .03 | .07 | 1.29 | .01 | .04 | .03 | .08 | 1.47 | .00 |
Participant × Target | .16 | .06 | .16 | 2.82** | .02 | |||||
.04** | .06** | |||||||||
Panel D: Perceived Attractiveness Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | -1.14 | 1.20 | -.96 | -1.15 | 1.20 | -.96 | ||||
Target Ideology | .46 | 2.40 | .01 | .19 | .00 | .44 | 2.41 | .01 | .18 | .00 |
Participant Ideology | 1.85 | .78 | .14 | 2.37* | .02 | 1.83 | .78 | .13 | 2.34* | .02 |
Participant × Target | -.53 | 1.58 | -.02 | -.33 | .00 | |||||
.02† | .02 | |||||||||
Panel E: Psychological Discomfort Difference | ||||||||||
Constant | -.06 | .04 | -1.75† | -.07 | .04 | -1.79† | ||||
Target Ideology | .15 | .07 | .11 | 1.96† | .01 | .14 | .07 | .11 | 1.95† | .01 |
Participant Ideology | -.04 | .02 | -.09 | -1.63 | .01 | -.04 | .02 | -.10 | -1.80† | .01 |
Participant × Target | -.14 | .05 | -.17 | -2.96** | .03 | |||||
.02* | .05** |
*
Target Ideology × Perceiver Ideology interactions on dependent variables for Study 2. Standardized regression coefficients are reported for simple slopes and numbers in parentheses represent standard error.
Testing the intercepts, conservative participants did not differ in their liking of the target after discovering the target was liberal (
Testing the intercepts, as predicted, conservative participants were significantly less romantically interested in the target after discovering he/she was liberal (
Testing the intercepts, conservative participants unexpectedly rated the target as significantly more attractive after discovering he/she was liberal (
Testing the intercepts, conservative participants did not differ in discomfort after discovering the target was liberal (
Study 2 found that people’s impressions of potential mates change after discovering their political ideology. In particular, liberals’ impressions of the target tended to become more favorable after discovering the target was also liberal, and more unfavorable after discovering the target was conservative. Conservatives’ impressions tended to become more favorable after discovering the target was also conservative, but generally did not change after discovering the target was liberal (aside from becoming less romantically interested in the target). Unexpectedly, conservatives’ ratings of target attractiveness increased after discovering the target was liberal. These reactions to ingroup and outgroup targets differ slightly from those found in Study 1, as conservatives in Study 1 liked the liberal target less and become more romantically interested in the target but did not change their liking of the conservative target, whereas in Study 2, the reverse occurred.
Across two studies, we demonstrated that initial impressions of other people change after discovering political information about the target. Using a dating paradigm, we found that both liberals and conservatives liked targets more and became more romantically interested in them after discovering that a target was politically similar, but liked targets less and became less romantically interested in them after discovering political dissimilarity with the target. Unexpectedly, conservatives did not change their physical attractiveness ratings of politically similar or dissimilar targets in Study 1, and surprisingly rated both liberals and conservatives as more attractive after discovering political information in Study 2. In contrast, liberals rated politically dissimilar targets as less physically attractive and politically similar targets as more attractive. Further, liberals became more uncomfortable after discovering a target held a dissimilar political ideology. In contrast, both liberals and conservatives became less uncomfortable after discovering a target held a similar political ideology. Some of these findings among conservatives could in part be due to the limited number of conservatives in our samples.
In Study 2, the perceived attractiveness task required participants to select the true face from an array of more or less attractive faces. This task is a more subtle measure of attractiveness intended to capture actual perceptions rather than self-reports. The self-reported measure of physical attractiveness was surprisingly uncorrelated with the perceived attractiveness task, suggesting responses on this measure of perceived attractiveness do not necessarily cohere with self-reports. While participants’ self-reported ratings of the target’s attractiveness changed after discovering the target’s political ideology, their actual perceptions of the target’s attractiveness did not. Thus, it appears that perceived target attractiveness was unaffected by the political ideology manipulation. Though unexpected, these findings are consistent with evidence suggesting that subtle measures of attitudes (e.g., implicit attitudes) are less susceptible to change than are explicit ones (
These studies go beyond other recent findings regarding political dissimilarity and physical attractiveness (
Moreover, these studies suggest that liberals and conservatives might form impressions of others in roughly similar ways, in that both tend to become positively biased toward political ingroup members and negatively biased toward political outgroup members. Additionally, liberals, but not conservatives, became more uncomfortable after discovering that a target was ideologically dissimilar. This is somewhat inconsistent with work on negativity bias, which suggests that conservatives are particularly responsive to threats and negativity in their environment (
Again, these ambiguous results are possibly due to the fact that there were smaller numbers of conservatives (Study 1,
Despite some inconsistencies, our findings are largely in line with recent research suggesting that negative intergroup attitudes are similarly expressed on both sides of the political spectrum (
These findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between political ideology and disliking. Replicating past work (
Practically, these findings have implications for intergroup relations, particularly between political groups. As reviewed earlier, political ideology is one of the strongest sources of disliking (
It is possible that participants did not conceptualize the study as a true mating paradigm, but rather as simply an impression formation task. Sixty three percent of the sample in Study 1 and 73% of the sample in Study 2 reported being in romantic relationships, and it might have been less potent of a paradigm for those participants (although we did instruct them to imagine they were not in a relationship for the purposes of the study). While this is certainly possible, our results were not moderated by relationship status.x We also found differences in romantic interest and perceived attractiveness, suggesting that participants’ attitudes on these romantically-relevant factors did change, which indicates that they likely bought into the dating paradigm. However, future research could compare the impact of political ideology in a dating paradigm with only single individuals with a general impression formation setting unrelated to dating.
Although MTurk samples have been shown to be more representative than student samples, the means of ideology in both studies (
Lastly, our samples were limited in their diversity. We sampled from MTurk, and thus participants might not have devoted their full attention to completing our studies. Further, although MTurk samples are often more diverse than student samples, the issue of generalizability still remains. For example, our samples only included participants in the United States. The United States has a highly charged political climate, and thus the effects we observed are likely driven by the strength of the ideological divide in American culture. Notably, these data were collected before the polarizing 2016 Presidential Election, and it is possible that our observed effects might have been even stronger if collected during or after that time. Future work should examine whether such effects of political (dis)similarity emerge in other cultures, particularly those in which political ideology is not particularly divisive within the population. Although research on worldview conflict has found similar effects in non-U.S. samples (e.g.,
We tested the idea that political partisans change their initial impressions of others after discovering value similarity or dissimilarity. Extending past work, we demonstrated that attitudes toward dissimilar others
In the following survey we want to see how people form impressions of other people as they learn more information about them. You will be presented with 4 pages of information from someone's dating website profile. After being given some information about the person on each page, you will be asked what you think about that person. You will receive more detailed information about that person on each subsequent page, and will be asked to provide your overall evaluation of that person on each page. Please read the provided information about this person very carefully. Thank you.
Are you currently in an exclusive romantic relationship with another person?
You are participating in this study regardless of whether you are currently in a romantic relationship. In order to provide you with the appropriate dating profile, please tell us which of the following best describes your romantic interests?
(Pictures not included for confidentiality reasons. Pictures were of a female or a male depending on participants’ romantic interest. Same name was used for both.)
Based on the information you have learned about the person so far, please answer the following questions.
How much would you like to meet this person, if you had the opportunity?
How much would you like to go on a date with this person?
To what extent do you think this person would be a good romantic partner?
How would you rate this person on the following traits? (intelligent, bright, successful, responsible, ambitious, likeable, aggressive, hostile, impolite, impatient, attractive)
How similar do you see this person to yourself?
Overall, how much do you like this person?
Please indicate the extent to which you currently feel the following emotions: uneasy, uncomfortable, bothered
To what extent do you see this person as holding social or political beliefs different from your own?
Here is a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from very liberal to very conservative. Where would you place yourself on this scale?
Which political candidate did the person you read about volunteer for during the 2012 Presidential campaign?
What is your biological sex?
Are you currently in an exclusive romantic relationship with another person?
Which of the following best describes your romantic preferences?
What is the YOUNGEST age of someone you would consider dating? (Please give a whole number, not a range).Note: Don't take your current relationship status into account. If you're in a relationship, just imagine you are single and considering the age range of someone you would date.
What is the OLDEST age of someone you would consider dating? (Please give a whole number, not a range).Note: Don't take your current relationship status into account. If you're in a relationship, just imagine you are single and considering the age range of someone you would date.
In this survey we want to see how people form impressions of other people as they learn more information about them. You will be presented with 4 pages of information from someone's dating website profile. After being given some information about the person on each page, you will be asked what you think about that person. You will receive more detailed information about that person on each subsequent page, and will be asked to provide your overall evaluation of that person on each page. NOTE: Do not take your current relationship status into account when thinking about how you feel about the individual. In other words, if you are currently in a romantic relationship, please answer the questions throughout as if you were single and evaluating the person as a potential dating partner. Please read the provided information about this person very carefully. Thank you.
Based on the information you have learned about the person so far, please answer the following questions. Reminder: Don't take your current relationship status into account. If you are currently in a romantic relationship, please answer the questions imagining that you are single and interested in dating someone.
How would you rate this person on the following traits? (intelligent, bright, successful, responsible, ambitious, likeable, aggressive, hostile, impolite, impatient, physically attractive)
How similar do you see this person to yourself?
Overall, how much do you like this person?
Please indicate the extent to which you currently feel the following emotions: uneasy, uncomfortable, bothered
Based on what you know so far, how much would you like to meet this person, if you had the opportunity?
Based on what you know so far, how much would you like to go on a date with this person?
Based on what you know so far, to what extent do you think this person would be a good romantic partner?
Next, a quick memory test. Do you remember what you've learned about the person so far?
What is the person's first name?
How old is the person?
How did the person describe his or her body type?
Which political candidate did the person you read about volunteer for during the 2012 Presidential campaign?
Below you'll see a series of faces. At the top right hand corner is the person's real photograph, the same photograph you saw before. Below that are a series of other faces. ONE face is the same as the real photograph. YOUR JOB: Choose the correct face out of the array of faces--that is, choose the face that matches the photograph at the top. Don't spend too much time on this task, we know it's tricky. Just go with your best guess. When you've decided, write the letter of your choice below:
To what extent do you see this person as holding social or political beliefs different from your own?
Here is a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from very liberal to very conservative. Where would you place yourself on this scale?
The authors have no funding to report.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The authors have no support to report.
Those who failed attention checks and those who passed did not significantly differ from each other in demographic variables such as political ideology and age, and did not differ in outcome variable scores (all
We initially included a control condition (
We also conducted the same analyses excluding moderates (those who reported “4” on our political ideology scale). The key Target Ideology × Participant Ideology interaction remained significant for differences in overall liking (
To adjust for Type 1 error, we Bonferroni corrected our alpha levels for both studies and checked all analyses against them. All but one analysis passed. The analysis that did not pass was that for psychological discomfort in Study 1, which was a weaker measure that we improved upon in Study 2. Given that Bonferroni corrections are a conservative way to correct for Type 1 error, we are confident that the rest of our results are not false positives.
We conducted additional analyses using difference scores calculated only between Phase 3 and Phase 2 (immediately before and after participants received political information about the target). We observed the same significant Target Ideology × Perceiver Ideology interaction for each outcome variable (Overall liking:
Those who failed attention checks and those who passed did not significantly differ from each other in demographic variables such as political ideology (
We also ran the same analyses excluding moderates (those who reported “4” on our political ideology scale). The key Target Ideology × Participant Ideology interaction remained significant for differences in overall liking (
We conducted additional analyses using difference scores calculated only between Phase 3 and Phase 2 (immediately before and after participants received political information about the target). We observed the same significant Target Ideology × Perceiver Ideology interaction for each outcome variable except rated attractiveness (Overall liking:
Although the overall interactions between matched/mismatched condition and participant ideology were not significant, a pairwise comparison in Study 2 was marginally significant. Conservatives rated liberal targets as marginally more similar to themselves than did liberals who rated conservative targets,
We tested the three-way interaction between target ideology, participant ideology, and participant relationship status for all dependent variables. None of these interactions were significant in Study 1 (all