ARTICLE RESPONSE 2 2

Article Response 2

1. (1 Points) State the hypotheses in your own words (see ‘Hypotheses’ section, p. 171).
   The researchers hypothesized that the elevated threat resulting from the 7/7 bombings should
   lead to people being more prejudiced and prioritizing more conservative foundations rather than
   liberal ones.
2. (2 Points) List the conceptual variables that the researchers measured.
3. Political orientation
4. Negative attitude towards immigrants
5. Negative attitude towards Muslims
6. Moral foundations (in-group loyalty, authority-respect, harm-care, and fairness-
   reciprocity).
7. (2 points) How did the researchers operationalize negative attitudes toward
   Muslims?
   They measured their attitudes using the response that they provided to two questions about
   loyalty of Muslims and their effect on Britain’s identity.
   (1 point) What kind of measure did the researchers use (self-report, behavioral,
   physiological)?
   The researchers used self-report.
   (1 point) What were the items and how was the scale constructed?

ARTICLE RESPONSE 2 3
Respondents were asked to record their level of agreement or disagreement with two statements.
Their responses were recorded on a scale of 1 to 5.

4. (1 Points) Think of another way to operationalize (i.e. measure) negative attitudes
   toward immigrants. Describe it.
   Instead of using a scale where respondents choose a figure on a scale of 1 to 5, I would have
   asked them to simply provide a yes or no answer on the questions provided.
5. (2 points) Summarize the conclusions of this research in your own words (see
   beginning of ‘Discussion’ section, p. 174).
   The conclusions of the research show that when a security threat such as the 7/7 bombings occur,
   people who identify as conservatives strengthen their existing priorities while those who identify
   as liberals shift their priorities and become more conservative as seen on measures such as their
   increased levels of prejudice.
6. (2 Points) What are 2 implications of these findings (see Discussion section, p. 175)?
   The research’s findings have implications on policy strategists and people working to reduce the
   problem of prejudice. For policy strategists, particularly those that seek to strengthen national
   cohesion around shared values, the study helps them to recognize the danger of such an approach
   because by promoting in-group approach, it makes the population more, not less, prejudiced. As
   for people working to reduce levels of prejudice, this research helps them understand that people
   often become more prejudiced after occurrence of a terror event. The approaches they use before
   a terror event should, therefore, be different from the ones they use after a terror event.

ARTICLE RESPONSE 2 4

ARTICLE RESPONSE 2 5

References

Van de Vyver, J., Houston, D. M., Abrams, D., & Vasiljevic, M. (2016). Boosting belligerence:
How the July 7, 2005, London bombings affected liberals’ moral foundations and
prejudice. Psychological Science, 27(2), 169-177.