Posited motivational differences between liberals and conservatives have historically been controversial. This motivational interface has recently been bridged, but the vast majority of studies have used self-reports of values or motivation. Instead, the present four studies investigated whether two classic social motive themes—power and affiliation—vary by political ideology in objective linguistic analysis terms. Study 1 found that posts to liberal chat rooms scored higher in standardized affiliation than power, whereas the reverse was true of posts to conservative chat rooms. Study 2 replicated this pattern in the context of materials posted to liberal versus conservative political news websites. Studies 3 and 4, finally, replicated a similar interactive (ideology by motive type) pattern in State of the State and State of the Union addresses. Differences in political ideology, these results suggest, are marked by, and likely reflective of, mind-sets favoring affiliation (liberal) or power (conservative).
AltemeyerR. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
2.
AtkinsonJ. W. (1958). Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
3.
BarkerD. C. (2002). Rushed to judgment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
4.
BarneaM.SchwartzS. H. (1998). Values and voting. Political Psychology, 19, 17-40.
5.
CapraraG.SchwartzS.CapannaC.VecchioneM.BarbaranelliC. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1-28.
6.
CarneyD.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807-840.
7.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press.
8.
ConverseP. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331-353.
9.
CrewsF. (2006). Follies of the wise: Dissenting essays. Emeryville, CA: Shoemaker & Hoard.
10.
EitamB.HigginsE. T. (2010). Motivation in mental accessibility: Relevance of a Representation (ROAR) as a new framework. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 951-967.
11.
FedericoC. M.WeberC. R.ErgunD.HuntC. (2013). Mapping the connections between politics and morality: The multiple sociopolitical orientations involved in moral intuition. Political Psychology, 34, 589-610.
12.
FettermanA. K.RobinsonM. D.OdeS. (2015). Interpersonal arrogance and the incentive salience of power versus affiliation cues. European Journal of Personality, 29, 28-41.
13.
FrommE. (1947). Man for himself: An inquiry into the psychology of ethics. New York, NY: Holt. Rinehart, and Winston.
14.
GoslingS. D.SandyC. J.JohnO. P.PotterJ. (2010). Wired but not WEIRD: The promise of the Internet in reaching more diverse samples. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33, 94-95.
15.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046.
16.
HogenraadR. (2003). The words that predict the outbreak of wars. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 21, 5-20.
17.
HogenraadR. (2005). What the words of war can tell us about the risk of war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 11, 137-151.
18.
JaenschE. R. (1938). Der Gegentypus [The Anti-Type]. Leipzig, Germany: J.A. Barth.
19.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651-670.
20.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
21.
KellyE. F.StoneP. J. (1975). Computer recognition of English word senses. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
22.
KerlingerF. N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
KihlstromJ. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237, 1445-1452.
24.
KostermanR.FeshbachS. (1989). Towards a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257-274.
25.
LakoffG. (1996). Moral politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
LitwinG. H. (1965). The language of achievement: An analysis of achievement related themes in fantasy using mechanical methods (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
27.
MaiselS. (2007). American political parties and elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
MartindaleC. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York, NY: Basic Books.
29.
McClellandD. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
30.
McClellandD. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
31.
McClellandD. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
McClellandD. C.KoestnerR.WeinbergerJ. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?Psychological Review, 96, 690-702.
33.
McGuireW. J. (1999). The vicissitudes of attitudes in social psychology. In McGuireW. J. (Ed.), Constructing social psychology: Creative and critical processes (pp. 325-347). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MehlM. R. (2006). Quantitative text analysis. In EidM.DienerE. (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurements in psychology (pp. 141-156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
35.
NewmanM. L.GroomC. J.HandelmanL. D.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211-236.
36.
NewmanM. L.PennebakerJ. W.BerryD. S.RichardsJ. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.
37.
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K.IrelandM.GonzalesA. L.BoothR. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: Available from www.LIWC.net
38.
PennebakerJ. W.KingL. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312.
39.
PennebakerJ. W.MehlM. R.NiederhofferK. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-577.
40.
PetersG. (1999). State of the Union addresses and messages (American Presidency Project). Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu
41.
PiurkoY.SchwartzS. H.DavidovE. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32, 537-561.
42.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.
43.
RudeS. S.GortnerE.PennebakerJ. W. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1121-1133.
44.
SchultheissO. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: Theory and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
45.
SchultheissO. C. (2013). Are implicit motives revealed in mere words? Testing the marker-word hypothesis with computer-based text analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 748. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00748
46.
ShilsE. A. (1968). The end of ideology? In WaxmanC. (Ed.), The end of ideology debate (pp. 49-63). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
47.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SlatcherR. B.ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. W.StoneL. D. (2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 63-75.
49.
SmithM. S. (1968). The computer and the TAT. Journal of School Psychology, 6, 206-214.
50.
StoneP. J. (1997). Thematic text analysis: New agendas for analyzing text content. In: RobertsC. W. (Ed.), Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts (pp. 35-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
StoneP. J.DunphyD. C.SmithM. S.OgilvieD. M. (1966). The General Inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
53.
ThorisdottirH.JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2009). On the social and psychological bases and system justification. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 3-23). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
TrapnellP. D.PaulhusD. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values: Their scope and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 39-52.
55.
WinterD. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 196-202.
56.
WinterD. G. (1993). Power, affiliation and war: Three tests of a motivational model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 532-545.
57.
WinterD. G. (2003). Measuring the motives of political actors at a distance. In PostJ. M. (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political actors: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 153-177). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
58.
WinterD. G.JohnO. P.StewartA. J.KlohnenE. C.DuncanL. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230-250.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
