IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v14y2019i4p412-422_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Right-wing ideology and numeracy: A perception of greater ability, but poorer performance

Author

Listed:
  • Choma, Becky L.
  • Sumantry, David
  • Hanoch, Yaniv

Abstract

Right-wing ideology and cognitive ability, including objective numeracy, have been found to relate negatively. Although objective and subjective numeracy correlate positively, it is unclear whether subjective numeracy relates to political ideology in the same way. Replicating and extending previous research, across two samples of American adults (ns= 455, 406), those who performed worse on objective numeracy tasks scored higher on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), and they self-identified as more conservative on general, social, and economic continua. Controlling for objective numeracy, subjective numeracy related positively to measures of right-wing ideologies. In other words, those who strongly (vs. weakly) endorsed right-wing ideologies believed they are good with numbers yet performed worse on numeracy tasks. We discuss implications for the opposing direction of associations between ideology with objective versus subjective numeracy and similarities with literature on overconfidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Choma, Becky L. & Sumantry, David & Hanoch, Yaniv, 2019. "Right-wing ideology and numeracy: A perception of greater ability, but poorer performance," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 412-422, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:412-422_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500006100/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:412-422_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.