Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T07:30:43.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political ideology is contextually variable and flexible rather than fixed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

G. Scott Morgan ,
Linda J. Skitka  and
Daniel C. Wisneski
G. Scott Morgan
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940. smorgan@drew.edu https://sites.google.com/site/gscottmorgan3/
Linda J. Skitka
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607-7137. lskitka@uic.edu http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/index.html dwisne2@uic.edu https://sites.google.com/a/uic.edu/daniel-wisneski
Daniel C. Wisneski
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607-7137. lskitka@uic.edu http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/index.html dwisne2@uic.edu https://sites.google.com/a/uic.edu/daniel-wisneski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hibbing et al. argue that the liberal–conservative continuum is (a) universal and (b) grounded in psychological differences in sensitivity to negative stimuli. Our commentary argues that both claims overlook the importance of context. We review evidence that the liberal–conservative continuum is far from universal and that ideological differences are contextually flexible rather than fixed.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 321 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brooks, A. C. (2008) Gross national happiness: What happiness matters for Americans and how we can get more of it. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Cervone, D. (2005) Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology 56:423–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V. & Tagler, M. J. (2001) Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social Issues 2:207–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, C. S. (1994) Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:882–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N. & Gray, J. R. (2010) Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big five. Psychological Science 21:820–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duckitt, J. (2001) A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 33:41–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., Goodman, J. A. & Blanchar, J. C. (2012) Low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38:808–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunther, R. & Diamond, L. (2003) Species of political parties: A new typology. Party Politics 9:167–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jou, W. (2010) The heuristic value of the left-right schema in East Asia. International Political Science Review 31:366–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, C. M., Krosnick, J. A. & Milburn, M. A. (1981) Political involvement and attitude structure in the general public. American Sociological Review 46:660–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, C. M. & Milburn, M. A. (1980) The structure of attitude systems in the general public: Comparisons of a structural equation model. American Sociological Review 45:627–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlinger, F. N. (1972) The structure and content of social attitude referents: A preliminary study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 32:613–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlinger, F. N. (1984) Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kluegel, J. R. (1990) Trend in whites' explanations of the black–white gap in socioeconomic status, 1977–1989. American Sociological Review 55:512–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, S. (2006) Does ideology transcend culture? A preliminary examination in Romania. Journal of Personality 74:1219–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1998) Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of the big five personality factors. Journal of Research in Personality 32:431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52:509–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molenaar, P. C. M., Huizenga, H. M. & Nesselroade, J. R. (2003) The relationship between the structure of interindividual and intraindividual variability: A theoretical and empirical vindication of Developmental Systems Theory. In: Understanding human development: Dialogues with lifespan psychology, ed. Staudinger, U. M. & Lindenberger, U., pp. 339–60. Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. S., Mullen, E. & Skitka, L. J. (2010) When values and attributions collide: Liberals' and conservatives' values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36:1241–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moskowitz, A. N., Jenkins, J. C. (2004) Structuring political opinions: Attitude consistency and Democratic competence among the U.S. mass public. The Sociological Quarterly 45:395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napier, J. L. & Jost, J. T. (2008) Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science 19(6):565–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orom, H. & Cervone, D. (2009) Personality dynamics, meaning, and idiosyncrasy: Identifying cross-situational coherence by assessing personality architecture. Journal of Research in Personality 43:228–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peffley, M. A. & Hurwitz, J. (1985) A hierarchical model of attitude constraint. American Journal of Political Science 29:871–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saucier, G. (2000) Isms and the structure of social attitudes. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:366–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlenker, B. R., Chambers, J. R. & Le, B. M. (2012) Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality 46(2):127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skitka, L. J. (1999) Ideological and attributional boundaries on public compassion: Reactions to individuals and communities affected by a natural disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25:793–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Mullen, E., Griffin, T., Hutchinson, S. & Chamberlin, B. (2002) Dispositions, ideological scripts, or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in attributions for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:470–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skitka, L. J. & Tetlock, P. E. (1992) Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28:491–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, J. A. (1975) Belief systems: Constraint, complexity, and the 1972 elections. American Journal of Political Science 19:393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P., Funk, C. & Craighill, P. (2006) Are we happy yet? Available at: http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/AreWeHappyYet.pdf.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D. & Ditto, P. H. (2009) The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making 4:476–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar