From personality to politics
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
- concern for fairness
-ensure individuals protected from harm
High binding
-value order
-authority
-in group loyalty
-aspirations to a pure life
2 moral values combined to predict political orientation
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.