@article{nokey,
title = {Inclusionary and Exclusionary Preferences: A Test of Three Cognitive Mechanisms},
author = {Marika Landau-Wells and Kirsten O Lydic and Joachim Kennedy and Benjamin G Mittman and Todd W Thompson and Akhil Gupta and Rebecca Saxe},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-025-10091-x},
doi = {10.1007/s11109-025-10091-x},
issn = {},
year  = {2025},
date = {2025-11-22},
urldate = {2025-11-22},
journal = {Political Behavior},
abstract = {Exclusionary social policies take a significant toll on the mental and physical health of targeted groups. Support for specific exclusionary policies does not always align with general antipathy towards the targeted group, however. Does support forspecific exclusionary policies rely on particular thought processes (i.e., cognitivemechanisms)? Does opposition? We investigate these questions through the lens of “bathroom laws” across two studies. In Study 1, we use functional neuroimaging to test three candidate cognitive mechanisms from the literature: (1) threat-related emotions (e.g., fear, disgust) supporting exclusionary preferences; (2) mentalizing (e.g., empathy, perspective-taking) supporting inclusionary preferences; and (3) self-regulation (e.g., aligning one’s behavior with one’s goals) supporting inclusionary preferences. Consistent with the intergroup conflict and prejudice literatures, we find evidence of a motivated self-regulation mechanism in bathroom law opponents. In Study 2, we investigate a possible source of this motivation using text analysis of open-ended policy preference justifications. We find that bathroom law opponents link their policy preference to a small number of specific values, particularly autonomy of action. Taken together, these studies point to a value-driven, motivational account of inclusionary preferences that reconciles puzzling patterns of public opinion, offers new levers for tolerance interventions, and provides some insight into the brain-basis of political behavior.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

{"_id":"bH6TpReW3K2eoCEjo","bibbaseid":"landauwells-lydic-kennedy-mittman-thompson-gupta-saxe-inclusionaryandexclusionarypreferencesatestofthreecognitivemechanisms-2025","author_short":["Landau-Wells, M.","Lydic, K. O","Kennedy, J.","Mittman, B. G","Thompson, T. W","Gupta, A.","Saxe, R."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Inclusionary and Exclusionary Preferences: A Test of Three Cognitive Mechanisms","author":[{"firstnames":["Marika"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Landau-Wells"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Kirsten","O"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lydic"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Joachim"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kennedy"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Benjamin","G"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Mittman"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Todd","W"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Thompson"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Akhil"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gupta"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Rebecca"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Saxe"],"suffixes":[]}],"url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-025-10091-x","doi":"10.1007/s11109-025-10091-x","issn":"","year":"2025","date":"2025-11-22","urldate":"2025-11-22","journal":"Political Behavior","abstract":"Exclusionary social policies take a significant toll on the mental and physical health of targeted groups. Support for specific exclusionary policies does not always align with general antipathy towards the targeted group, however. Does support forspecific exclusionary policies rely on particular thought processes (i.e., cognitivemechanisms)? Does opposition? We investigate these questions through the lens of “bathroom laws” across two studies. In Study 1, we use functional neuroimaging to test three candidate cognitive mechanisms from the literature: (1) threat-related emotions (e.g., fear, disgust) supporting exclusionary preferences; (2) mentalizing (e.g., empathy, perspective-taking) supporting inclusionary preferences; and (3) self-regulation (e.g., aligning one’s behavior with one’s goals) supporting inclusionary preferences. Consistent with the intergroup conflict and prejudice literatures, we find evidence of a motivated self-regulation mechanism in bathroom law opponents. In Study 2, we investigate a possible source of this motivation using text analysis of open-ended policy preference justifications. We find that bathroom law opponents link their policy preference to a small number of specific values, particularly autonomy of action. Taken together, these studies point to a value-driven, motivational account of inclusionary preferences that reconciles puzzling patterns of public opinion, offers new levers for tolerance interventions, and provides some insight into the brain-basis of political behavior.","keywords":"","pubstate":"published","tppubtype":"article","bibtex":"@article{nokey,\ntitle = {Inclusionary and Exclusionary Preferences: A Test of Three Cognitive Mechanisms},\nauthor = {Marika Landau-Wells and Kirsten O Lydic and Joachim Kennedy and Benjamin G Mittman and Todd W Thompson and Akhil Gupta and Rebecca Saxe},\nurl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-025-10091-x},\ndoi = {10.1007/s11109-025-10091-x},\nissn = {},\nyear = {2025},\ndate = {2025-11-22},\nurldate = {2025-11-22},\njournal = {Political Behavior},\nabstract = {Exclusionary social policies take a significant toll on the mental and physical health of targeted groups. Support for specific exclusionary policies does not always align with general antipathy towards the targeted group, however. Does support forspecific exclusionary policies rely on particular thought processes (i.e., cognitivemechanisms)? Does opposition? We investigate these questions through the lens of “bathroom laws” across two studies. In Study 1, we use functional neuroimaging to test three candidate cognitive mechanisms from the literature: (1) threat-related emotions (e.g., fear, disgust) supporting exclusionary preferences; (2) mentalizing (e.g., empathy, perspective-taking) supporting inclusionary preferences; and (3) self-regulation (e.g., aligning one’s behavior with one’s goals) supporting inclusionary preferences. Consistent with the intergroup conflict and prejudice literatures, we find evidence of a motivated self-regulation mechanism in bathroom law opponents. In Study 2, we investigate a possible source of this motivation using text analysis of open-ended policy preference justifications. We find that bathroom law opponents link their policy preference to a small number of specific values, particularly autonomy of action. Taken together, these studies point to a value-driven, motivational account of inclusionary preferences that reconciles puzzling patterns of public opinion, offers new levers for tolerance interventions, and provides some insight into the brain-basis of political behavior.},\nkeywords = {},\npubstate = {published},\ntppubtype = {article}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Landau-Wells, M.","Lydic, K. O","Kennedy, J.","Mittman, B. G","Thompson, T. W","Gupta, A.","Saxe, R."],"key":"nokey-1-1-1-1","id":"nokey-1-1-1-1","bibbaseid":"landauwells-lydic-kennedy-mittman-thompson-gupta-saxe-inclusionaryandexclusionarypreferencesatestofthreecognitivemechanisms-2025","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-025-10091-x"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":2},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/network/files/sRsLeoxvqHeSAvoEg","dataSources":["YXxMbi3YAZkEnaeR4","3sNhDcK5zjJyfZGJT","zXSHkDrNH3ntkMr5P","9yzL2r3QJDmvqcSEy","JNzBevrXRX65Fbio9"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["inclusionary","exclusionary","preferences","test","three","cognitive","mechanisms","landau-wells","lydic","kennedy","mittman","thompson","gupta","saxe"],"title":"Inclusionary and Exclusionary Preferences: A Test of Three Cognitive Mechanisms","year":2025,"downloads":2}