Democratic policymaking requires compromise, but public support for it varies substantially. Scholars know relatively little about the psychology of such public attitudes. In this investigation, we consider the predictive capacities of humanitarianism (a commitment to helping those who are suffering) and egalitarianism (a commitment to treating people equally). Such altruistic values, we argue, foster concern for the common good and a cooperative vision of democratic policymaking — which, in turn, engender support for compromise. Moreover, we suggest that partisan differences in such values (with Democrats being more likely than Republicans to prioritize them, on average), help explain Democrats’ disproportionate support for compromise. Data from two nationally representative studies are consistent with this theoretical perspective, offering novel insights into the roots of political compromise, the reach of core values as political determinants, and the dynamics of partisan asymmetry.
AcharyaA.BlackwellM.SenM. (2016). Explaining causal findings without bias: Detecting and assessing direct effects. American Political Science Review, 110(3), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055416000216
2.
AlfordJ. R.FunkC. L.HibbingJ. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted?American Political Science Review, 99(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051579
3.
AllredK. G.MallozziJ. S.MatsuiF.RaiaC. P. (1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2705
4.
AndersonS. E.ButlerD. M.Harbridge-YongL. (2020). Rejecting compromise: Legislators fear of primary voters. Cambridge University Press.
BarberM.McCartyN. (2015). In MansbridgeJ.MartinC. J. (Eds.), Political negotiation: A handbook. Brookings Institution Press.
8.
BarkerD. C.CarmanC. J. (2012). Representing red and blue: How the culture wars change the way citizens speak and politicians listen. Oxford University Press.
9.
BarkerD. C.TinnickJ.II. (2006). Competing visions of parental roles and ideological Constraint. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055406062149
10.
BarkerD. C.MariettaM.RyanD. T.(2021). American hubris: The politics of unwarranted epistemic certitude in the United States” in Barker. In DavidCSuhayE. (Eds.), The politics of truth in polarized America. Oxford University Press.
BauerN. M.YongL. H.KrupnikovY. (2017). Who is punished? Conditions affecting voter evaluations of legislators who do not compromise. Political Behavior, 39(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9356-6
13.
BerelsonB. (1952). Democracy and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1086/266397
14.
BinderS. A. (2003). Stalemate: Causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Brookings Institution Press.
CohenG. L.ShermanD. K.BastardiA.HsuL.McGoeyM.LeeR.(2007). Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed- mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.415
DohertyD. (2015). How policy and procedure shape citizens’ evaluations of senators. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 241–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12074
23.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
24.
DwyerF. R.WalkerO. C. (1981). Bargaining in an asymmetrical power structure. Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251724
25.
FeldmanS. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111130
26.
FeldmanS. (2013). Political ideology” in huddy, leonie, sears. In DavidO.LevyJ. S. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
27.
FeldmanS.SteenbergenM. R. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 658–677. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669244
28.
FishkinJ. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform (217). Yale University Press.
29.
GingesJ.ScottA.DouglasM.ShikakiK. (2007). Sacred Bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357–7360. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701768104
30.
GlaserJ. M.BerryJ. M. (2018). Compromising positions: Why republican partisans are more rigid than Democrats. Political Science Quarterly, 133(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12735
31.
GlaserJ. M.BerryJ. M.SchildkrautD. J. (2019). Education and the curious case of the conservative campus. Political Research Quarterly, 74(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919866509
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
34.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats. Oxford University Press.
35.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton University Press.
36.
HaasI. J. (2016). The impact of uncertainty, threat, and political identity on support for political compromise. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1169181
37.
HabermasJ.McCarthyT.McCarthyT. (1984) The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). SciELO Brasil.
38.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2016). American amnesia: How the war on government led us to forget what made America prosper. Simon & Schuster.
39.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
40.
HalperinE.PoratR.WohlM. (2013). Extinction threat and reciprocal threat reduction: Collective angst predicts willingness to compromise in intractable intergroup conflicts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(6), 797–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213485994
41.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN. (2011). Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in congress: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 494–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00517.x
42.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN.HarrisonB. F. (2014). Public preferences for bipartisanship in the policymaking process. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12048
43.
HetheringtonM. J.WeilerJ. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
44.
HibbingJ.Theiss-MorseE.WhitakerE. (2009). Americans’ perceptions of the nature of governing. In MondakJ. J.MitchellD.-G. (Eds.), Fault lines: Why the Republicans lost congress. Routledge.
45.
HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge University Press.
46.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020761
JacobyW. G. (2014). Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion. American Political Science Review, 108(4), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000380
49.
JohnstonC. D.LavineH. G.FedericoC. M. (2017). Open vs. Closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
50.
JudisJ. B. (2020). The socialist awakening: What’s different now about the left. Columbia Global Reports.
51.
KamarckE.WallnerJ.(2018). Anticipating trouble: Congressional primaries and incumbent behavior. R Street Policy Study.
52.
KeohaneR. O (1984). After hegemony. Princeton University Press.
53.
KerlingerF. N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism. The nature and structure of social attitudes. Routledge.
54.
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
55.
KirklandJ. H.HardenJ. J. (2018). Indecision in American legislatures. University of Michigan Press.
56.
LakoffG. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. University of Chicago Press.
57.
LasswellH. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when and how. McGraw Hill.
58.
LeeF. E. (2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago Press.
59.
LelkesY.SnidermanP. M. (2016). The ideological asymmetry of the American party system. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 825–844. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123414000404
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became republiccans. University of Chicago Press.
62.
LevineP. (1999). The new Progressive era: Toward a fair and deliberative democracy. Rowman and Littlefield.
63.
LevyM.WrightM. (2020). Forthcoming. Immigration and the American ethos. Cambridge University Press.
64.
LukerK. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. University of California Press.
65.
LuptonR. N.SmallpageS. M.EndersA. M. (2020). Values and political predispositions in the Age of polarization: Examining the relationship between partisanship and ideology in the United States, 1988-2012. British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123417000370
66.
MacKuenM.WolakJ.KeeleL.MarcusG. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x
67.
MannT. E.OrnsteinN. J. (2016). It’s even worse that it looks: How the American constitutional system coliided with the new politics of extremeism (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
68.
MansbridgeJ. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. University of Chicago Press.
69.
MaozI.MccauleyC. (2009). Threat perceptions and feelings as predictors of Jewish-Israeli support for compromise with Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 46(4), 525–539Mutz. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309334613
70.
MariettaM. (2012). The politics of sacred rhetoric. Baylor University Press.
71.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
72.
McadamsD. P.AlbaughM.FarberE.DanielsJ.LoganR. L.OlsenB. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 978–990. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012650
73.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
74.
McCloskyH.ZallerJ. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Harvard University Press.
75.
NebloM. A.EsterlingK. M.LazerD. M. J. (2018) Politics with the people: Building a directly representative democracy (Vol. 555). Cambridge University Press.
76.
OliverJ. E.WoodT. J. (2018). Enchanted America: How intuition and reason divide our politics. University of Chicago Press.
77.
OxleyD. R.SmithK. B.AlfordJ. R.HibbingM. V.MillerJ. L.ScaloraM., et al. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321(5896), 1667–1670. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157627
78.
PeffleyM. A.HurwitzJ. (1985). A hierarchical model of attitude Constraint. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 871–890. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111185
79.
PinkleyR. L.NealeM. A.BennettR. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1006
80.
PiurkoY.ShalomH.DavidovE. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32(4), 537–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00828.x
81.
RammstedtB.JohnO. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
82.
ReevesA.RogowskiJ. C. (2016). Unilateral powers, public opinion, and the presidency. Journal of Politics, 78(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1086/683433
83.
ReevesA.RogowskiJ. C. (2018). The public cost of unilateral action. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12340
84.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
85.
RousseauJ.-J. (1782) The social contract or principles of political right (1762) (Vol. 141). The Basic Political Writings.
86.
RyanT. J. (2017). No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12248
87.
SchellingT. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press.
88.
SchufeldtG. (2018). Party–group Ambivalence and voter loyalty: Results from three experiments. American Politics Research, 46(1), 132-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17705854
89.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (25, pp. 1–65). Elsevier.
90.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.DuckittJ. (2007). Antecedents of mens hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294745
SmithK. B.OxleyD. R.HibbingM. VAlfordJ. R.HibbingJ. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: Reconceptualizing political ideology. Political Psychology, 32(3), 369–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00821.x
94.
SparksS.ConoverP. J. (2020). Can citizen attitudes be moved to accept compromise in legislative policymaking?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the southern political science association. (January 9).
95.
StennerK. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press.
WolakJ. (2020). Compromise in an Age of partisan polarization. Oxford University Press.
100.
WolfM. R.StrachanJ. C.SheaD. M. (2012). Incivility and standing firm: A second layer of partisan division. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(3), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096512000509
101.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
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.
