Progressivism has increasingly challenged traditional liberalism as the dominant influence within left-wing ideology. Across four studies, we developed a measure—the Progressive Values Scale (PVS)—that characterizes distinctly progressive values within the left-wing. In Study 1, left-wing participants evaluated divisive issues, with four scale factors emerging. In Study 2, we confirmed this factor structure and included a battery of personality and values measures to explore individual differences among those who maintain a progressive worldview. In Study 3, we achieved final confirmation of the factor structure and validated the ability of the PVS to assess a distinctly progressive perspective, insofar as progressives generated prototypical faces for Liberals and Conservatives that were markedly distinct from those generated by traditional liberals. In Study 4, we distinguished the PVS from measures of left-wing authoritarianism and demonstrated that it is a better predictor of progressive political preferences and social judgments.
AltemeyerR. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.”Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–91.
2.
AzenR.BudescuD. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.129
3.
BartholomewK.HorowitzL. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
4.
Bay-ChengL. Y.FitzC. C.AlizagaN. M.ZuckerA. N. (2015). Tracking homo oeconomicus: Development of the neoliberal beliefs inventory. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 71–88.
BrinkmanL.TodorovA.DotschR. (2017). Visualising mental representations: A primer on noise-based reverse correlation in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 28, 333–361.
7.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford.
8.
BudescuD. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542
9.
CarpenterS. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 25–44.
10.
CattellR. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. Plenum.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
13.
ConwayL. G.HouckS. C.GornickL. J.RepkeM. A. (2018). Finding the Loch Ness monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39, 1049–1067.
14.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359.
15.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
16.
CostelloT. H.BowesS. M.StevensS. T.WaldmanI. D.TasimiA.LilienfeldS. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122, 135–170.
17.
CostinV.VignolesV. L. (2020). Meaning is about mattering: Evaluating coherence, purpose, and existential mattering as precursors of meaning in life judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 864–884.
18.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J. (2020). Ideological (a)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 40–45.
19.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
20.
DemouresF.MongesL.PiolaL.ParfaitA.LefevreM. (2020). Finding France: A people in search of their country. More in Common. https://www.lafranceenquete.fr
FrimerJ. A.SkitkaL. J.MotylM. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12.
25.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
26.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.
27.
HaidtJ.LukianoffG. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin.
28.
HawkinsS.YudkinD.Juan-TorresM.DixonT. (2018). Hidden tribes: A study of America’s polarized landscape. More in Common. https://hiddentribes.us
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028.
31.
HobsbawmE. (1996). Identity politics and the left. New Left Review, 1/217, 38–47.
32.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
33.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
KaiserH. F.RiceJ. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111–117.
36.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.
37.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 901–931.
38.
LangF. R.JohnD.LüdtkeO.SchuppJ.WagnerG. G. (2011). Short assessment of the Big Five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 548–567.
LindemanM.VerkasaloM. (2005). Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s value survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 170–178.
41.
LundqvistD.LittonJ. E. (1998). The Averaged Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces -AKDEF. CD-ROM from Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institutet.
PaulhusD. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In BraunH.JacksonD. N.WileyD. E. (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 67–88). Erlbaum.
47.
PaulhusD. L.CareyJ. M. (2011). The FAD–Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 96–104.
48.
PiurkoY.SchwartzS. H.DavidovE. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32, 537–561.
SamochowiecJ.WankeM.FiedlerK. (2010). Political ideology at face value. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 206–213.
51.
SchlenkerB. R.ChambersJ. R.LeB. M. (2012). Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 127–146.
52.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612.
53.
SchriesheimC. A.EisenbachR. J.HillK. D. (1991). The effect of negation and polar opposite item reversals on questionnaire reliability and validity: An experimental investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511005
54.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
StrautsE.BlantonH. (2015). That’s not funny: Instrument validation of the concern for political correctness scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 32–40.
58.
SuhayE.BrandtM. J.ProulxT. (2017). Lay belief in biopolitics and political prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 173–182.
59.
SurridgeP. (2021). Britain’s choice: Polarisation or cohesion. The Political Quarterly, 92, 119–124.
60.
TafarodiR. W.SwannW. B.Jr. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions of global self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 322–342.
61.
TetlockP. E. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 365–375.
TroppL. R.UluğÖ. M.UysalM. S. (2021). How intergroup contact and communication about group differences predict collective action intentions among advantaged groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 80, 7–16.
65.
TurnerN. E. (1998). The effect of common variance and structure pattern on random data eigenvalues: Implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 541–568.
66.
Van HielA. (2012). A psycho-political profile of party activists and left-wing and right-wing extremists. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 166–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01991.x
67.
Van OudenhovenJ. P.HofstraJ.BakkerW. (2003). Ontwikkeling en evaluatie van de Hechtingstijlvragenlijst (HSL) [Development and evaluation of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 58, 95–102.
WilliamsM. J.EberhardtJ. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033–1047.
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.
