From personality to politics

1. From personality to politics

2. Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, Brian A. Nosek (2009) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5) p1029-1046

3. Introduction • This article examined moral foundation theory, which was originally developed to describe the differences among cultures of moral differences. This was applied to moral differences ranging across the political spectrum in the USA. A left right spectrum of political views was used to predict opinions and behaviour.

4. Study 1: Moral Relevance Methods Participants had to rate their political self-identification. Participants also had to rate how relevant various concerns were to them when making moral judgements. Results Graham et al. (2009) found that liberals rated issues related to the individualising foundations (Harm and Fairness) as more relevant than conservatives did and that conservatives rated issues related to the binding foundations (Ingroup, Authority and Purity) as being more relevant than liberals did.

5. Study 2: Moral Judgements Methods Political identity was measured in the same way as in study 1 but was also implicitly measures using the IAT. The moral relevance items were the same ones as in study 1, with a few additional items and in addition moral judgement items were used. Results The pattern for implicit political identity was similar for that of explicit political identity. The results of the moral judgements element was similar to that of moral relevance – conservatives agreed with the individualising foundation judgements less than liberals and with binding foundation judgements more.

6. Study 3: Moral Trade Offs • Participants were confronted with situations which involved trading off either a sacred or profane value. They showed resistance to the task as if it was not right to even consider the options. The researchers generated 5 trade offs covering each moral foundation. • Liberals refused to make trade offs on individualising options but were more likely to perform actions which violated the binding foundations. • However , Conservatives showed a more even pattern of results – opting to not act in ways which violated authority.

7. Study 4: Moral Texts • Sermons which have previously been delivered in both Liberal and Conservative churches were used for this task to test the moral foundations hypothesis. • Liberals were more likely to talk about harm and fairness whereas Conservatives were more likely to talk about authority and purity.

8. In study 1, liberals and conservatives differed in which foundations were morally relevant to them • In study 2, liberals and conservatives differed in which moral judgements they agreed on • In study 3, Liberals refused to make trade-offs on the individualising foundations and conservatives were more unwilling to accept money in violation with binding foundations • In study 4, liberal and conservative religious leaders use different words to do different things

9. Discussion The four studies found support for their moral foundations hypothesis. Across the four studies, the moral values of liberals was more concerned with harm and fairness, while the moral values of conservatives was more evenly distributed across the five foundations.

10. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations Lewis Gary J.; Bates Timothy C., (2011) British Journal of psychology, 120, 546-558

11. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristis moral adaptations, Lewis & Bates 2011 • Alford 2005: Political attitudes contain a substantial heritable component, which may reflect difference in personality • Research has failed to support such associations • In this study, using McCrae & Costa’s personality system model to see if personality affects political orientation via mediating characteristic adaptations • Openness has been most reliably associated with politics • Large individual differences in political behaviour even after controlling for eg social status, gender  personality?

12. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations, Lewis & Bates 2011 • Personality system framework: • Level 1: largely biologically driven basic tendencies, eg personality • Level 2: characteristic adaptations (eg values) • Level 3: Objective biography  behaviours shown during interplay with external stimuli and level 2 •  no direct link from personality to behaviour (eg political orientation) • Hypothesis: each of 5 personality domains would show effects on political orientation + test link between FFM and binding/individualising and politics

13. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations, Lewis & Bates 2011 • Study 1: • 447 participants • Moral values assessed using MFQ • Personality assessed using NEO-PI-R • Political orientation assessed on 7-point Likert-scale measure • Study 2: • 476 participants from “mechanical Turk” • Support/opposition on Likert scale to 14 items addressing current political issues • Test similar to MFQ for moral relevance • Short Big Five personality inventory

14. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations, Lewis & Bates 2011 Results – Study 1 Openness direct association with political orientation No association between conscientiousness and binding Openness, neuroticism, agreeableness – INDIVIDUALISING Openness, neuroticism, extraversion – BINDING

15. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations, Lewis & Bates 2011 Results – Study 2 Agreeableness and conscientiousness direct association with political orientation No association between openness and binding Openness, neuroticism, agreeableness – INDIVIDUALISING Conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion – BINDING

16. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations, Lewis & Bates 2011 • Discussion • Both studies support personality system model of political orientation. • High individualising High binding • - concern for fairness -value order • ensure individuals protected from harm -authority • -in group loyalty • -aspirations to a pure life • 2 moral values combined to predict political orientation

17. From left to right: how the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations, Lewis & Bates 2011 • -Neuroticism • High neuroticism predicts high individualising and high binding • -Differences between Study 1 and Study 2 • Conscientiousness linked to binding in Study 2 • Mean age difference between Study 1 and Study 2 (20 years vs. 32 years) • Openness not associated with binding in Study 2 • Short-measurement personality instrument (10 items) • -Future Research • Explore additional intermediary constructs by which personality affects political behaviour.