The dramatic rise in political polarization and aggravation of race relations are prominent in the United States. While dissimilarity to others is thought to undermine trust, I challenge the assumption that dissimilarity does so uniformly in the workplace where cross-party and cross-race interactions are structurally induced. Leveraging construal-level theory, I theorize that deep- versus surface-level differences with a coworker interact with ideology to activate higher versus lower construals of trustworthiness, prompting liberals and conservatives to distrust their coworkers in different ways. For liberals, I argue that perceived political dissimilarity undermines perceived person trustworthiness (a higher level/abstract construal, capturing one's trustworthiness generally as a person in the world) and disclosure. For conservatives, I argue that perceived racial dissimilarity undermines perceived role trustworthiness (a lower level/concrete construal, capturing one's trustworthiness specifically in their job) and reliance. Study 1 (a proof of concept) and Study 2 (a longitudinal, dyadic field study) utilize inductive theory-building and exploratory analyses. Studies 3a, 3b(i), and 3b(ii) (three preregistered experiments) support my hypotheses: Liberals tend to view politically dissimilar coworkers as less trustworthy people in the world and refrain from disclosures, while conservatives tend to view racial outgroup coworkers as less trustworthy in their jobs and refrain from reliance. Given liberal and conservative employees' roles in the calcification of political and racial group cleavages, respectively, organizations must determine whether both forms of bias should be addressed-indeed, racial bias is socially unacceptable, whereas political bias is widely tolerated-and, if so, whether interventions should target employees based on ideology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

自由派与保守派的不信任：一种解释层面的工作场所差异的方法。


政治两极分化的急剧上升和种族关系的恶化在美国尤为突出。虽然与他人的差异被认为会破坏信任，但我质疑这样一种假设，即在跨党派和跨种族互动的结构性诱导的工作场所中，差异是一致的。利用解释层面的理论，我从理论上认为，与同事的深层与表面差异与意识形态相互作用，以激活可信度的高低解释，促使自由派和保守派以不同的方式不信任他们的同事。对于自由主义者来说，我认为感知到的政治差异会破坏感知到的个人可信度（一种更高层次/抽象的解释，通常捕捉一个人在世界上的可信度）和披露。对于保守派来说，我认为感知到的种族差异会破坏感知到的角色可信度（一种较低层次/具体的解释，专门捕捉一个人在工作中的可信度）和依赖性。研究 1（概念验证）和研究 2（纵向、二元实地研究）利用归纳理论构建和探索性分析。研究 3a、3b（i） 和 3b（ii）（三个预先注册的实验）支持我的假设：自由派倾向于将政治上不同的同事视为世界上不太值得信任的人，并避免披露，而保守派倾向于认为种族外群体的同事在工作中不太值得信赖，并且避免依赖。 鉴于自由派和保守派员工分别在政治和种族群体分裂的钙化中的作用，组织必须确定是否应该解决这两种形式的偏见——事实上，种族偏见在社会上是不可接受的，而政治偏见是被广泛容忍的——如果是这样，干预是否应该根据意识形态针对员工。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。