High RWAs condemn political intimidation only when their own side is the victim.
Evidence
I uncovered another double standard in a 1978 study in which students were asked to judge the seriousness of an unfair election practice (RWA, p. 323). Half the subjects were told a New Democratic government had discretely threatened Conservative Party supporters if they contributed to a Conservative campaign. The others got the reverse story. Low RWAs condemned both acts of intimidation, equally. Highs proved less concerned overall about official wrongdoing, and were significantly more condemning of a New Democratic government putting the screws to its political opponents than of a Conservative government doing the same. — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 1459
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- XREF: Connects to motivated reasoning and confirmation bias literature; also contemporary partisan double standards over rule of law.
Related
- Authoritarian voters tolerate in-party political intimidation while condemning identical out-party acts. (similarity 0.90)
- Low authoritarians show double standards favoring liberal figures and causes (similarity 0.80)
- Low authoritarians show same hypocrisy bias when tested on their own beliefs (similarity 0.79)
- Low RWAs occasionally misbehave but still differ fundamentally in integrity from Highs (similarity 0.79)
- Authoritarians apply a biased standard for evidence that favors their beliefs (similarity 0.79)
- Authoritarians endorse contradictory principles and apply double standards without noticing (similarity 0.79)
- Authoritarians aggress mainly when authority sanctions their attacks. (similarity 0.78)
- High-authoritarians ignore obvious pandering and believe dishonest politicians are sincere (similarity 0.78)
- Reform MPs scored far higher on authoritarianism than Liberal or NDP MPs. (similarity 0.78)