Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 703–719 | Cite as

Articulating ideology: How liberals and conservatives justify political affiliations using morality-based explanations

  • Daniel M. Rempala
  • Bradley M. Okdie
  • Kilian J. Garvey
Original Paper

Abstract

Two studies examined the degree to which participants’ were aware of their morality-based motivations when determining their political affiliations. Participants from the U.S. indicated what political party (if any) they affiliated with and explained their reasons for that affiliation. For participants who identified as “Liberal/Democrat” or “Conservative/Republican,” coders read the responses and identified themes associated with Moral Foundations Theory. In Study 1, thematic differences between liberals and conservatives paralleled previous research, although the extent of the disparities was more pronounced than expected, with the two groups showing little overlap. In Study 2, the actual influence of Moral Foundations (as measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire) was dramatically greater than was indicated by the coding of participants’ open-ended responses. In addition, actual disparities in use of Moral Foundations between liberals and conservatives were greater than participants’ stereotyped perceptions. We discuss how this research furthers our understanding of conscious motivations for political affiliation and can help to facilitate political discourse.

Keywords

Political affiliation Moral foundations theory Resistance to change 

References

  1. Achen, C. (2002). Parental socialization and rational party identification. Political Behavior, 24, 151–170. doi:10.1023/A:1021278208671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S., Kellogg, R., Langer, A., & Sallee, J. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of automobile brand preferences: Empirical evidence and implications for firm strategy. Working Paper 19535. Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19535 doi:10.3386/w19535.
  3. Baumard, N., & Boyer, P. (2013). Explaining moral religions. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17, 272–280. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2005). Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 734–749. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burger, J. M. (1981). Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 496–512. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.3.496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cliffordson, C. (2002). The hierarchical structure of empathy: Dimensional organization and relations to social functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 49–59. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identification. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645. doi:10.2307/2110756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113.Google Scholar
  9. deDreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Oldersma, F. L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348–362. doi:10.1177/0146167299025003007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. deDreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrated negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 975–987. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodd, M. D., Hibbing, J. R., & Smith, K. B. (2011). The politics of attention: gaze-cuing effects are moderated by political temperament. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73, 24–29. doi:10.3758/s13414-010-0001-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards, J. A. (1998). Effects of causal uncertainty on the dispositional attribution process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 109–135. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Federico, C. M., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2014). Opposition to equality and support for tradition as mediators of the relationship between epistemic motivation and system-justifying identifications. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 524–541. doi:10.1177/1368430213517273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giddons, A. (1999). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. doi:10.1177/102425899800400415.Google Scholar
  15. Goleman, D. (1994). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.989.Google Scholar
  16. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.Google Scholar
  17. 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, 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. doi:10.1037/a0021847.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage Books. doi:10.1080/15426432.2015.1038148.Google Scholar
  21. Hooghe, M., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2008). The stability of political attitudes and behaviors across adolescence and early adulthood: A comparison of survey data on adolescents and young adults in eight countries. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 155–167. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9199-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, T., & Bodtker, A. (2001). Mediating with heart in mind. Negotiation Journal, 17, 217–244. doi:10.1023/A:1013283710190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21, 677–680. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, K. R., Kang, J. S., & Yun, S. (2012). Moral intuitions and political orientation: Similarities and differences between South Korea and the United States. Psychological Reports, 111, 173–185. doi:10.1037/t05651-000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  27. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861–876. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lahti, D. C. (2009). The correlated history of social organization, morality, and religion. In E. Voland & W. Schiefenhovel (Eds.), The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior: The frontiers collection (pp. 67–88). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00128-4_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2012). It’s even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. McAdams, D. P., Albaugh, M., Farber, E., Daniels, J., Logan, R. L., & Olson, B. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 978–990. doi:10.1037/a0012650.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. McWhirter, R. M., & Jecker, J. D. (1967). Attitude similarity and inferred attraction. Psychonomic Science, 7, 225–226. doi:10.3758/BF03328552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neuman, S. (2012). Just how independent are Independent voters? Retrieved December 24, 2013, from http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149402358/just-how-independent-are-independent-voters.
  34. Newport, F. (2010). Tea Party supporters overlap Republican base. Retrieved February 4, 2016, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/tea-party-supporters-overlap-republican-base.aspx.#!mn-us.
  35. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Connor, K. M. (1997). Motives and cognitions in negotiation: A theoretical integration and empirical test. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 114–131. doi:10.1108/eb022792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pruitt, D. G., Carnevale, P. J. D., Ben-Yoav, O., Nochajski, T. H., & Van Slyck, M. (1983). Incentives for cooperation in integrative bargaining. In R. Tietz (Ed.), Aspiration levels in bargaining and economic decision making (pp. 22–34). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Pulos, S., Elison, J., & Lennon, R. (2004). The hierarchical structure of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 355–360. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rahim, M. A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J. H., Yu, C. S., et al. (2002). A model of emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies: A study in seven countries. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 302–326. doi:10.1108/eb028955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2007). Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the Need for Closure scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 266–280. doi:10.1177/0146167206294744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. doi:10.1002/j.2164-4918.1961.tb02039.x.Google Scholar
  42. Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. doi:10.1086/222700.Google Scholar
  43. Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., et al. (2013). Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in democrats and republicans. PLoS One, 8(2), e52970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052970.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, K. B., Oxley, D., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left-right political orientations. PLoS One, 10, e25552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, G. D. (1973). A dynamic theory of conservatism. In G. D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (pp. 257–265). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers in ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel M. Rempala
    • 1
  • Bradley M. Okdie
    • 2
  • Kilian J. Garvey
    • 3
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.The Ohio State University-NewarkNewarkUSA
  3. 3.University of Louisiana-MonroeMonroeUSA

Personalised recommendations