Advertisement

Compassionate Democrats and Tough Republicans: How Ideology Shapes Partisan Stereotypes

  • Scott CliffordEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Trait stereotypes are a fundamental form of social cognition that influence public opinion. A long line of literature has established partisan stereotypes of politicians, but we know less about the source of these stereotypes and whether they apply to partisans in the mass public. Building on moral psychology, I argue that the public holds clear stereotypes about the moral character of mass partisans and that these stereotypes are rooted in ideology. Using a national survey, I show that Democrats and Republicans prioritize different aspects of moral character, but that these differences are more strongly linked to political ideology than partisan identity. Next, I show that much of the public holds trait stereotypes about mass partisans that reflect these differences in trait importance. Finally, I provide experimental evidence that people use partisan cues to draw stereotypical inferences about individuals, but that these inferences are more responsive to ideological information than partisan cues. Overall, the results suggest that partisan stereotypes are not merely outgroup animus, but reflect the values and motivations that differentiate the parties.

Keywords

Stereotypes Morality Partisanship Ideology Character traits 

Notes

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9542_MOESM1_ESM.docx (467 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 466 kb)

References

  1. Acharya, A., Blackwell, M., & Sen, M. (2018). Analyzing causal mechanisms in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57(1), 289–300.Google Scholar
  3. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. Com’s mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berinsky, A. J., & Mendelberg, T. (2005). The indirect effects of discredited stereotypes in judgments of Jewish leaders. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 845–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32(4), 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brambilla, M., Rusconi, P., Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Pagliaro, S., & Ellemers, N. (2013). Morality and intergroup relations: Threats to safety and group image predict the desire to interact with outgroup and ingroup members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brambilla, M., et al. (2012). You want to give a good impression? Be honest! moral traits dominate group impression formation. The British Journal of Social Psychology/The British Psychological Society, 51(1), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers, J. R., Baron, R. S., & Inman, M. L. (2006). Misperceptions in intergroup conflict. Disagreeing about what we disagree about. Psychological Science, 17(1), 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers, J. R., & Melnyk, D. (2006). Why do I hate thee? Conflict misperceptions and intergroup mistrust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1295–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifford, S. (2014). Linking issue stances and trait inferences: A theory of moral exemplification. The Journal of Politics, 76(03), 698–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clifford, S. (2018). Reassessing the structure of presidential character. Electoral Studies, 54, 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coppock, A. (2018). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods.  https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egan, P. J. (2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts american politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellemers, N., Pagliaro, S., Barreto, M., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Is it better to be moral than smart? The Effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status improvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1397–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farwell, L., & Weiner, B. (2000). Bleeding hearts and the heartless: Popular perceptions of liberal and conservative ideologies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), 845–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Federico, C. M., Weber, C. R., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2013). Mapping the connections between politics and morality: The multiple sociopolitical orientations involved in moral intuition. Political Psychology, 34(4), 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D. M., & Slovic, P. (2011). The cultural orientation of mass political opinion. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 711–714.Google Scholar
  21. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Goggin, S. N., & Theodoridis, A. G. (2017). Disputed ownership: parties, issues, and traits in the minds of voters. Political Behavior, 39(3), 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Moral character in person perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The Moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, J., et al. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graham, J., et al. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.Google Scholar
  29. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities theory through a partisan of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 908–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xiaowen, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H., & Federico, C. M. (2017). Open versus closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jonathan H. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion (Vintage). Vintage.Google Scholar
  36. Jonathan H. (2016). Are moral foundations heritable? Probably.” RighteousMind.com. http://righteousmind.com/are-moral-foundations-heritable-probably/ (November 7, 2016).
  37. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 307–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kam, C. D., & Kinder, D. R. (2012). Ethnocentrism as a short-term force in the 2008 American Presidential Election. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kennedy, R., et al. (2018). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3272468.
  40. Kertzer, J. D., Powers, K. E., Rathbun, B. C., & Iyer, R. (2014). Moral support: How moral values shape foreign policy attitudes. The Journal of Politics, 76(03), 825–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koleva, S. P., et al. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lakoff, G. (2010). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2009). Terrorist threat, leadership, and the vote: Evidence from three experiments. Political Behavior, 31(4), 575–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2015). Evaluating political leaders in times of terror and economic threat: The conditioning influence of politician Partisanship. The Journal of Politics, 1, 4.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161300039X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2016). The Generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(02), 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pagliaro, S., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2011). Sharing moral values: Anticipated Ingroup respect as a determinant of adherence to morality-based (but not competence-based) group norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1117–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peffley, M., Hurwitz, J., & Sniderman, P. M. (1997). Racial stereotypes and whites’ political views of blacks in the context of welfare and crime. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robison, J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2016). Elite polarization and public opinion: How polarization is communicated and its effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scherer, A. M., Windschitl, P. D., & Graham, J. (2014). An ideological house of mirrors: Political stereotypes as exaggerations of motivated social cognition differences. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.Google Scholar
  54. Sides, J., & Gross, K. (2013). Stereotypes of Muslims and support for the war on terror. The Journal of Politics, 75(03), 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simas, E. N. (2018). Ideology through the partisan lens: Applying anchoring vignettes to U.S. Survey research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(3), 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, K. B., et al. (2016). Intuitive ethics and political orientations: Testing moral foundations as a theory of political ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 424–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van der Lee, R., Ellemers, N., Scheepers, D., & Rutjens, B. T. (2017). In or out? How the perceived morality (vs. competence) of Prospective group members affects acceptance and rejection”. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Prooijen, A.-M., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Does it pay to be moral? How indicators of morality and competence enhance organizational and work team attractiveness. British Journal of Management, 26(2), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winter, Nicholas J. G. (2010). Masculine republicans and feminine democrats: Gender and Americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior, 32(4), 587–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations