Right–left political views can be decomposed into distinct economic and social dimensions that bear differing relations with external criteria. In three community samples (total N = 1,487), we identified replicable suppressor situations in which statistically controlling for either social or economic political ideology increased the other ideology dimension’s relations with variables reflecting cognitive rigidity, authoritarianism, dangerous worldview, and lethal partisanship. Specifically, positive bivariate relations between social conservatism and these outcomes were enhanced after controlling for economic conservatism, whereas, after controlling for social conservatism, positive bivariate relations between economic conservatism and external criteria became negative and negative bivariate relations were enhanced. We identified similar, albeit less consistent, suppressor phenomena for general personality. Taken together, our results suggest that social and economic conservatism differ substantially in their psychological implications, and that following statistical control, these differences emerge in samples in which social and economic conservatism are highly positively correlated.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.
2.
AltemeyerR. A. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
3.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.
4.
AzevedoF.JostJ. T.RothmundT.SterlingJ. (2019). Neoliberal ideology and the justification of inequality in capitalist societies: Why social and economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined. Journal of Social Issues, 75, 49–88.
5.
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.
6.
CapraraG. V.VecchioneM. (2018). On the left and right ideological divide: Historical accounts and contemporary perspectives. Political Psychology, 39, 49–83.
7.
CarlN. (2014). Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs. Intelligence, 44, 142–148.
8.
CarminesE. G.EnsleyM. J.WagnerM. W. (2012, October). Political ideology in American politics: One, two, or none?The Forum, 10, 1–20.
9.
CarneyD. R.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.
10.
ChirumboloA.LeoneL. (2010). Personality and politics: The role of the HEXACO model of personality in predicting ideology and voting. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 43–48.
11.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 464–473.
12.
CizmarA. M.LaymanG. C.McTagueJ.Pearson-MerkowitzS.SpiveyM. (2014). Authoritarianism and American political behavior from 1952 to 2008. Political Research Quarterly, 67, 71–83.
13.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1975). Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the social sciences. Wiley.
14.
CongerA. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 35–46.
15.
ConverseP. (1964). Ideology and discontent. The Free Press.
16.
CornelisI.Van HielA. (2006). The impact of cognitive styles on authoritarianism based conservatism and racism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 37–50.
17.
CostaP. T.JrMcCraeR. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.
18.
CrawfordJ. T.PilanskiJ. M. (2014). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology, 35, 841–851.
19.
de ZavalaA. G.CichockaA.BilewiczM. (2013). The paradox of in-group love: Differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81, 16–28.
20.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109.
21.
EverettJ. A. (2013). The 12 item social and economic conservatism scale (SECS). PLoS ONE, 8, e82131.
22.
FedericoC. M. (2020). When do psychological differences predict political differences? Engagement and the psychological bases of political polarization. In van ProoijenJ.-W. (Ed.), Political polarization. Routledge.
23.
FeldmanS.JohnstonC. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35, 337–358.
24.
FeldmanS.StennerK. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 741–770.
25.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
26.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
27.
HetheringtonM.WeilerJ. (2018). Prius or pickup? How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
28.
HibbingJ. R.SmithK. B.AlfordJ. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 297–350.
29.
JohnstonC. D.OllerenshawT. (2020). How different are cultural and economic ideology?Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 94–101.
30.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208.
31.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
32.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2013). Political ideologies and their social psychological functions. In FreedenM.StearsM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political ideologies (pp. 232–250). Oxford University Press.
33.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
34.
KalmoeN. P. (2020). Uses and abuses of ideology in political psychology. Political Psychology, 41, 771–793.
LamérisM. D.Jong-A-PinR.GarretsenH. (2018). On the measurement of voter ideology. European Journal of Political Economy, 55, 417–432.
37.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment, 25, 543–556.
38.
LefkofridiZ.WagnerM.WillmannJ. E. (2014). Left-authoritarians and policy representation in Western Europe: Electoral choice across ideological dimensions. West European Politics, 37, 65–90.
39.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open, 6, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
40.
LilienfeldS. O.WattsA. L.MurphyB.CostelloT. H.BowesS. M.SmithS. F.LatzmanR. D.HaslamN.TabbK. (2019). Personality disorders as emergent interpersonal syndromes: Psychopathic personality as a case example. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33, 577–622.
41.
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
42.
MalkaA.LelkesY. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative–liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23, 156–188.
43.
MalkaA.LelkesY.SotoC. J. (2017). Are cultural and economic conservatism positively correlated? A large-scale cross-national test. British Journal of Political Science, 49, 1045–1069.
44.
MondakJ. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
MorrisM. W.CarranzaE.FoxC. R. (2008). Mistaken identity: Activating conservative political identities induces “conservative” financial decisions. Psychological Science, 19, 1154–1160.
46.
NickersonC. (2008). Mutual suppression: Comment on Paulhus et al. (2004). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 556–563.
47.
OrthU.BerkingM.BurkhardtS. (2006). Self-conscious emotions and depression: Rumination explains why shame but not guilt is maladaptive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1608–1619.
48.
OrthU.RobinsR. W.MeierL. L.CongerR. D. (2016). Refining the vulnerability model of low self-esteem and depression: Disentangling the effects of genuine self-esteem and narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 133–149.
49.
PanJ.XuY. (2018). China’s ideological spectrum. The Journal of Politics, 80, 254–273.
50.
PaulhusD. L.RobinsR. W.TrzesniewskiK. H.TracyJ. L. (2004). Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 303–328.
51.
PaxtonR. O. (2007). The anatomy of fascism. Vintage.
52.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the need for closure scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 90–94.
53.
RokeachM. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. Basic Books.
54.
SchoemannA. M.BoultonA. J.ShortS. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 379–386.
55.
SterlingJ.JostJ. T.PennycookG. (2016). Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit?Judgment & Decision Making, 11, 352–360.
56.
TracyJ. L.ChengJ. T.RobinsR. W.TrzesniewskiK. H. (2009). Authentic and hubristic pride: The affective core of self-esteem and narcissism. Self and Identity, 8, 196–213.
57.
TracyJ. L.RobinsR. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339–1351.
58.
TzelgovJ.HenikA. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524–536.
59.
Van HielA.PandelaereM.DuriezB. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 824–837.
60.
Van HielA.OnraetE.CrowsonH. M.RoetsA. (2016). The relationship between right‐wing attitudes and cognitive style: A comparison of self‐report and behavioural measures of rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity. European Journal of Personality, 30, 523–531.
61.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.ChmielewskiM.KotovR. (2013). The value of suppressor effects in explicating the construct validity of symptom measures. Psychological Assessment, 25, 929.
62.
WigginsJ. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Addison-Wesley.
63.
YılmazO.SarıbayS. A.BahçekapılıH. G.HarmaM. (2016). Political orientations, ideological self-categorizations, party preferences, and moral foundations of young Turkish voters. Turkish Studies, 17, 544–566.
64.
ZellE.BernsteinM. J. (2014). You may think you’re right…Young adults are more liberal than they realize. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 326–333.
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.
