English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Guided by social identity theory, this study sought to understand how ingroup biases relating to political identity moderates the relationship between individuals’ judgments of a politician’s credibility and their perceived partisan ambivalence when they are exposed to news coverage about a politician who addresses their sexual misconduct allegations. A total of 198 participants were randomly assigned in a 2 by 2 between-subjects posttest-only factorial design. Results indicated that individuals who viewed the news story about a politician in their ingroup were more likely to perceive them as credible, and express higher levels of partisan ambivalence than those who viewed the story about an outgroup politician. In addition, the moderation effects suggest that despite problematic behaviors, politicians still receive significant support from their ingroup members, which has the potential to influence political outcomes in reality. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Sexual misconduct in politics: how intergroup biases affect judgments of a scandalized politician and partisan ambivalence