When a person indicates they are “liberal” or “conservative,” an important part of what they are communicating is their goals for how they would like society to be structured. However, past theories have described these goals in dramatically different fashions, suggesting that either conservativism or liberalism reflects a divisive or unifying goal. To help overcome this impasse, we systematically compared a broad, representative sample of all possible higher-order goals (drawn a previous lexical investigation of more than 1,000 goals) to the political ideology of American adults (total n = 1,588). The results of five studies suggested that proposals from competing theories are all partially correct. Conservativism simultaneously reflects the unifying “value” of Tradition, as well as the divisive “vice” of Elitism; while Liberalism simultaneously reflects the unifying “value” of Inclusiveness, and the divisive “vice” of Rebellion. These results help to integrate proposals from previous competing theories into a single framework.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. W. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology, 39, 119–135.
2.
AltemeyerR. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
3.
AltemeyerR. A. (2006). The authoritarians. R.A. Altemeyer.
4.
AustinJ. T.VancouverJ. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338–375.
5.
BadaanV.JostJ. T. (2020). Conceptual, empirical, and practical problems with the claim that intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination are equivalent on the political left and right. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 229–238.
6.
BerghR.BrandtM. J. (2021). Mapping principal dimensions of prejudice in the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123, 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000360
7.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34.
8.
BrunswikE. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.
9.
BuhrmesterM. D.TalaifarS.GoslingS. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 149–154.
10.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2015). The psychology of psychology: A thought experiment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 20–21.
11.
ConwayL. G.IIIHouckS. C.GornickL. J.RepkeM. A. (2018). Finding the Loch Ness monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39, 1049–1067.
12.
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.
13.
CummingG. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.
14.
DeciE. L.EghrariH.PatrickB. C.LeoneD. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142.
15.
DenzauA. D.NorthD. C. (2000). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. In LupiaA.McCubbinsM.C.PopkinS.L. (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 23–46). Cambridge University Press. (Original work publisher 1994)
16.
de RaadB.Morales-VivesF.BareldsD. P.Van OudenhovenJ. P.RennerW.TimmermanM. E. (2016). Values in a cross-cultural triangle: A comparison of value taxonomies in the Netherlands, Austria, and Spain. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 47, 1053–1075.
17.
DuarteJ. L.CrawfordJ. T.SternC.HaidtJ.JussimL.TetlockP. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1–58.
18.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM.P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Academic Press.
19.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130.
20.
DunwoodyP. T.FunkeF. (2016). The Aggression-Submission-Conventionalism Scale: Testing a new three factor measure of authoritarianism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4, 571–600.
21.
DuriezB.Van HielA. (2002). The march of modern fascism. A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213.
22.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 270–281.
23.
EitanO.ViganolaD.InbarY.DreberA.JohannessonM.PfeifferT.ThauS.UhlmannE. L. (2018). Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 188–199.
24.
ElliotA. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 111–116.
25.
EriksonR. S.TedinK. L. (2003). American public opinion (6th ed.). Longman.
26.
FitzsimonsG. M.FinkelE. J. (2018). Transactive-goal-dynamics theory: A discipline-wide perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 332–338.
27.
FleesonW.GallagherP. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097–1114.
28.
FryD. P. (2012). Life without war. Science, 336(6083), 879–884.
29.
FunderD. C. (2015). Towards a de-biased social psychology: The effects of ideological perspective go beyond politics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 25–26.
30.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549.
31.
GollwitzerP. M.MoskowitzG. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cognition. In HigginsE.T.KruglanskiA.W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 361–399). Guildford Press.
32.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ. (2012). Sacred values and evil adversaries: A moral foundations approach. In ShaverP.MikulincerM. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 11–31). APA Books.
33.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.MotylM.MeindlP.IskiwitchC.MooijmanM. (2018). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In GrayK.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–222). Guilford.
34.
HigginsE. T.Rossignac-MilonM.EchterhoffG. (2021). Shared reality: From sharing-is-believing to merging minds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(2), 103–110.
35.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.. . . StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO-Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028.
36.
InbarY.LammersJ. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496–503.
37.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2013). Surveying the moral landscape: Moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 219–236.
38.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2016). Social justice and social order: Binding moralities across the political spectrum. PLOS ONE, 11, Article e0152479.
39.
JohnO. P.NaumannL. P.SotoC. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). Guilford Press.
40.
JostJ. T. (2021). The values of a political psychologist. In JostJ. T. (Ed.), Left and right: The psychological significance of a political distinction (pp. 334–338). Oxford University Press.
41.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
42.
KashimaY. (2008). A social psychology of cultural dynamics: Examining how cultures are formed, maintained, and transformed. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 107–120.
43.
KesslerT.ProchJ.HechlerS.NäglerL. A. (2015). Political diversity versus stimuli diversity: Alternative ways to improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 30–31.
44.
KochanskaG.AksanN. (2006). Children’s conscience and self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 74, 1587–1618.
45.
KotovR.KruegerR. F.WatsonD.AchenbachT. M.AlthoffR. R.BagbyR. M.. . . ZimmermanM. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477.
46.
KuglerM.JostJ. T.NoorbaloochiS. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions?Social Justice Research, 27, 413–431.
47.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2019). How democracies die. Crown.
48.
LilienfeldS. O. (2015). Lack of political diversity and the framing of findings in personality and clinical psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 31–32.
49.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ. (2020). Conducting online research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and beyond. Sage.
50.
McCoyJ.SomerM. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681, 234–271.
MoskalenkoS.McCauleyC. (2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21, 239–260.
53.
NilssonA.JostJ. T. (2020). The authoritarian-conservatism nexus. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 148–154.
54.
OsborneD.JostJ. T.BeckerJ. C.BadaanV.SibleyC. G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 244–269.
55.
PeerE.BrandimarteL.SamatS.AcquistiA. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.
56.
PiurkoY.SchwartzS. H.DavidovE. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32(4), 537–561.
57.
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.
58.
RiveraE. D.WilkowskiB. M.MossA. J.RosenzweigC.LitmanL. (2022). Assessing the efficacy of a participant-vetting procedure to improve data-quality on Amazon’s mechanical turk. Methodology, 18, 126–143.
59.
RoetsA.AuE. W.Van HielA. (2015). Can authoritarianism lead to greater liking of out-groups? The intriguing case of Singapore. Psychological Science, 26, 1972–1974.
60.
SandyC. J.GoslingS. D.SchwartzS. H.KoelkebeckT. (2017). The development and validation of brief and ultrabrief measures of values. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 545–555.
61.
SaucierG. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366–385.
62.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612.
63.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.
64.
SchwartzS. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
65.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2016). The intention−behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 503–518.
66.
SherifM. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349–356.
67.
ShwederR. A. (2015). Should social psychologists create a disciplinary affirmative action program for political conservatives?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 39–40.
68.
SinnJ. S.HayesM. W. (2017). Replacing the moral foundations: An evolutionary-coalitional theory of liberal-conservative differences. Political Psychology, 38, 1043–1064.
69.
StanovichK. E. (2021). The bias that divides us: The science and politics of myside thinking. MIT Press.
70.
WashburnA. N.MorganG. S.SkitkaL. J. (2015). A checklist to facilitate objective hypothesis testing in social psychology research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 42–43.
71.
WatsonD. (2000). Mood and temperament. Guilford Press.
72.
WestfallJ.JuddC. M.KennyD. A. (2015). Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 390–399.
73.
WilkowskiB. M.FettermanA.LappiS. K.WilliamsonL. Z.LekiE. F.RiveraE.MeierB. P. (2020). Lexical derivation of the PINT taxonomy of goals: Prominence, inclusiveness, negativity prevention, and tradition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 1153–1187.
74.
WilkowskiB. M.WilliamsonL. Z.RiveraE.FettermanA.MeierB. P. (2022). What is the “opposite” of a value? A lexical investigation into the structure of generally undesirable goal content. Journal of Personality, 90, 357–374.
75.
WilsonM. S.SibleyC. G. (2013). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 34, 277–284.
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.
