Have you ever wished to have access to 51,404 observations from 69 countries (28 nationally representative samples) from Global North/South to analyze & study the social & moral psychology of #COVID19?
Thank you, @NathanKalmoe, for once more engaging with our work. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to discuss how both of our works differ/intersect. As you invited and welcomed my retorque, here are some additional thoughts.
In this iteration, you focused on samples, distributions, sophistication measures and interpretation. While the latter is always somewhat subjective, I see the remaining points as issues which are worth debating, and whose intricacies may be elucidating to the differences found:
Colleagues and I tackle admittedly contentious debates in ideology scholarship: ideological innocence, nexus between ideology’s most commonly theorized sub-structures (social & economic), and ideological asymmetries of PolPsy (via NeoLib).
Using a set of high quality nationally representative surveys from professional survey companies (SSI/Research Now/YouGov), in the US and UK, & in which a greater number and range of ideological instruments and psychological constructs were administered, we demonstrated that >>>
1.) contrary to the ideological innocence (K&K) hypothesis, dating back to Converse (1964), *at least as of 2016*, we observed a surprisingly high degree of ideological coherence, when using both operational and symbolic ideological instruments.
Methodologically, this work adds to the existing literature in a few meaningful ways. We used facets of established constructs to gain a more precise understanding of the psychological underpinnings of Trump supporters (2/12)
We analyzed psychological differences between politically relevant groups in the 2016 Election: Democrats, Republicans, and Trumpists in both primaries and general election. (3/12)