From Left to Right: The layer-cake model of behavior

1. From Left to Right: The layer-cake model of behavior Timothy Bates & Gary Lewis (British Journal of Psychology, 2011)

2. ISSID Maryland “I can tell you all the properties of a metal bar: Its dimensions, its conductivity, ductility, specific heat, density, and strength… But if you ask me has it been bent, I have to know whether you drove over it in a truck or not” H.J. Eysenck, ISSID, Baltimore, ML, 1993

3. Personality Systems Model “There is as yet nothing like an adequate taxonomy of processes, and creating such a taxonomy should become a priority for personality theorists” McCrae and Costa (2006, p. 164)

4. What’s the matter with everyone (else)? • Why doesn’t everybody vote the same? • Surely there’s a right answer? • At least that’s how we often talk: • “How can those people vote for Cameron’s conservatives? It’s stupid!” • “Little Davy Cameroon[sp]: Wrong again”

5. Individual differences in political orientation • Large individual differences in political behaviour remain after controlling status, gender, and IQ • Schoon, Cheng, Gale, Batty, & Deary, 2010 • Heritable component • N. Martin et al., 1986; • Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005 • Causes of difference may be complex or indirect • Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010; • Mondak, Hibbing, Canache, Seligson, & Anderson, 2010.

6. Background: Personality correlates • Openness most reliably associated with political orientation • r ~ around .3 with liberal political attitudes • Carney et al., 2008; McCrae, 1996; • Trapnell, 1994; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004. • Other traits mixed • C: Modest relationships of conscientiousness to orientation • Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Mondak & Halperin, 2008) • Other studies found no association (e.g. Alford & Hibbing, 2007). • A, E, N: Modest effects • e.g. Barbaranelli, Caprara, Vecchione, & Fraley, 2007 • More studies failed to find associations • Alford & Hibbing, 2007; Carney et al., 2008; Mehrabian, 1996; Trapnell, 1994. • Personality (other than O) is unrelated to political orientation (Alford & Hibbing, 2007; McCrae, 1996).

7. System Model of Education(Bates 2011)

8. What is the middle layer for politics? • Authoritarian personality? • Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950 • Radicalism and tender-mindedness? • Eysenck(1954) • 5 Moral foundations • Haidt (1997; 2011)

9. Haidt (2007; 2009; 2011)Moral Foundations • 5 moral facets nested under two moral domains • Group: Valuing of order, authority, in-group loyalty, and aspirations to a pure life. • Authority; • Purity; • In-group loyalty • Individualizing: Concerned for fairness and ensuring that individuals are protected from harm. • Fairness; • Harm

10. System Model for Politics(Lewis & Bates, 2011)

11. Study 1 • 447 subjects: UK undergrads • Political orientation measure: “How would you describe your political orientation?” “Very liberal” 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 “Very conservative”. • Widely used, reliable, valid • Carney et al., 2008; Fuchs & Klingemann, 1990; Jost, 2006) • NEO PI-R measure of personality • Haidt MFQ

12. Three models tested • M1: Personality  moral values political orientation • Described the data well without modification • RMSEA = .07, χ2 = 99.17 (df= 30, p <.001), CFI = .95 • Alternatives give poor fit as judged by all indices: • M2: Moral values Personality  political orientation • RMSEA = .10, χ2 = 107.80 (df= 31, p <.001), CFI = .91 • M3: Personality  political orientation, values • RMSEA = .12, χ2 = 226.48 (df= 32, p <.01), CFI = .85

13. Study 1 Results

14. Countervailing facets of N • Three facets of N significant for Individualizing • Countervailing effects: • Anxiety β = .14 • Self-consciousness β = .17 • Depression β = – .16 RMSEA = .07, χ2 = 17.53 (df= 6, p < .01), CFI = .99

15. Study 1 Summary • Individualising: • Linked to Openness, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness • Binding • Associated with O, N, and E • Binding and individualizing accounted for significant variance in political orientation. • Direct relationship for O on politics

16. Does it replicate? (Study 2) • 476 subjects • Different Country: US (not UK) • Different demography: Not student-based • Different Big Five inventory (Rammstedt & John, 2007), • Different (14–item) measure of politics: • Internet pornography, sex education in public schools, banning abortion and legalised gay marriage, allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States, higher taxes for the wealthy, aggressive military response to dangerous foreign groups, unemployment payments, gun control laws, offshore drilling, and subsidised healthcare for the poor. • 7-point Likert scales;Alpha =.82

17. Study 2 Results

18. What does this mean? • Personality system model validated • Values mediate links to political orientation.

19. Moral values combined • Predictpolitical orientation • Conservative orientation: • Valuing order and hierarchy combined with a low value on the treatment of individuals • Liberal or left-orientation • Low valuing of the group • Strong emphasis on equity and protecting people from harm

20. MFQ associations • Individualizing (fairness and harm). • Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness. • High binding (authority, loyalty, pure life) • Extraversion, Conscientiousness, low-Openness

21. Countervailing Personality effects • Neuroticism raises both individualizing and binding. • but individualizing and binding influence political orientation in opposite directions. • Failures to associate neuroticism with political orientation in previous research may be due to these influences effectively cancelling out at the level of politic orientation.

22. Facets can countervail too • Anxiety and self-consciousness both increase individualizing • Depression scores relate negatively to this value. • Wise to consider facet-level associations alongside the more common domain-level relations.

23. Articulating the left-right distinction • Imagine two individuals with moderate left-of-centre orientations. • One may value group solidarity strongly, but have little concern for individual liberties. • The other may value both the individual and the group to an equal but moderate extent. • Self-report an identical orientation • Disagree strongly over particular policies: • For instance, immigration and free trade • High group loyalty  favour trade barriers and protection • Civil liberties: treatment of individuals divides opinion among the left.

24. In Summary • Personality system model is a useful framework for understanding the complex relationship between personality and political orientation. • Personality significantly shapes political orientation • Largely indirectly, via an intermediary layer of characteristic adaptations. • Countervailing effects common and important