Are conservatives more simple-minded and happier than liberals? To revisit this question, 1,518 demographically diverse participants (52% females) were recruited from an online participant-sourcing platform and asked to write a narrative about the upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential Election as well as complete self and candidates’ ratings of personality. The narratives were analyzed using three well-validated text analysis programs. As expected, extremely enthusiastic Trump supporters used less cognitively complex and more confident language than both their less enthusiastic counterparts and Biden supporters. Trump supporters also used more positive affective language than Biden supporters. More simplistic and categorical modes of thinking as well as positive emotional tone were also associated with positive perceptions of Trump’s, but not Biden’s personality. Dialectical complexity and positive emotional tone accounted for significant unique variance in predicting appraisals of Trump’s trustworthiness/integrity even after controlling for demographic variables, self-ratings of conscientiousness and openness, and political affiliation.
AbeJ. A. (2018). Personality and political preferences: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Research in Personality, 77, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.001
2.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021226224601
3.
BoydR. L.SchwartzH. A. (2021). Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: The past, present, and future states of the field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40, 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967028
4.
CapraraG. V.BarbaranelliC.ZimbardoP. G. (2002). When parsimony subdues distinctiveness: Simplified public perceptions of politicians’ personality. Political Psychology, 23(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00271
CapraraG. V.VecchioneM.BarbaranelliC.FraleyR. C. (2007). When likeness goes with liking: The case of political preference. Political Psychology, 28, 609–632.
7.
ChandlerJ.RosenzweigC.MossA. J.RobinsonJ.LitmanL. (2019). Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavioral Research Methods, 51, 2022–2038. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7
8.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
9.
ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. W. (2014). Using computerized text analysis to track social processes. In HoltgravesT. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 219–230). Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.013.037.
10.
ConwayL. G.III.ConwayK. R.GorickL. J.HouckS. C. (2014). Automated integrative complexity. Political Psychology, 35, 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12021
11.
ConwayL. G.IIIConwayK. R.HouckS. C. (2020). Validating automated integrative complexity: Natural language processing and the Donald Trump test. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8, 504–524. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1307
12.
ConwayL. G.III.ThoemmesF.AllisonA. M.Hands TowgoodK.WagnerM. J.DaveyK.SalcidoA.StovallA. N.DoddsD. P.BongardK.ConwayK. R. (2008). Two ways to be complex and why they matter: Implications for attitude strength and lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1029–1044.
13.
CrossleyS. A.KyleK.McNamaraD. S. (2017). Sentiment analysis and social cognition engine (SEANCE): An automatic tool for sentiment, social cognition, and social-order Analysis. Behavioral Research, 49, 803–821. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0743-z
FedericoC. M.EkstromP. D. (2018). The political self: How identity aligns preferences with epistemic needs. Psychological Science, 29, 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617748679
16.
ForscherP. S.KteilyN. S. (2020). A psychological profile of the alt-right. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 15, 90–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619868208
17.
FrimerJ. A.BrandtM. J.MeltonZ.MotylM. (2018). Extremists on the left and right use angry, negative language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 1216–1231. https://doi.org/0.1177/0146167218809705
18.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
19.
GötzF.GoslingS.RentfrowJ. (2021). Small effects: The indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hzrxf
20.
HouckS. C.ConwayL. G.IIIGornickL. J. (2014). The automated integrative complexity: Current challenges and future directions. Political Psychology, 35, 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12209
21.
JordanK. N.PennebakerJ. W.EhrigC. (2018). The 2016 U.S. Presidential candidates and how people tweeted about them. SAGE Open, 8, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018791218
22.
JordanK. N.SterlingJ.PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L. (2018). Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions. PNAS, 116, 3476–3481. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811987116
23.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
24.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2013). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
25.
JostJ. T.SterlingJ. (2020). The language of politics: Ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress. Social Influence, 15, 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403
26.
KahanD.M., (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part 1: What politically motivated reasoning Is and how to measure it. In ScottR. A.KosslynS. M. (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417
LammersJ.KochA.ConwayP.BrandtM. J. (2016). Political domain appears simpler to the political extreme than to political moderates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678456
29.
LeeI. A.PreacherK. J. (2013, September). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer Software]. http://quantpsy.org
30.
MohammadS. (2021). Sentiment analysis: Automatically detecting valence, emotions, and other affectual states from text. In MeiselmanH. L. (Ed.), Emotion measurement (2nd ed., pp. 1–54). Woodhead Publishing. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.11882.pdf
OsborneD.SatherleyN.SibleyC. G. (2021). Personality and ideology: A meta-analysis of the reliable, but non-causal, association between openness and conservatism. In MintzA.TerrisL. (Eds.), Oxford handbook on behavioral political science (pp. 1–43). Oxford University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.009
37.
SterlingJ.JostJ. T.BonneauR. (2020). Political psycholinguistics: A comprehensive analysis of the language habits of liberal and conservative social media users. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 805–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000275
38.
SylwesterK.PurverM. (2016). Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between Democrats and Republicans. PLOS ONE, 10, Article e0137422. https://doi.org/0.1371/journal.pone.0137422
39.
Van ProoijenJ.KrouwelA. P. M. (2019). Psychological features of extreme political ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418817755
40.
WojcikS.HovasapianA.GrahamJ.MotylM.DittoP. H. (2015). Conservatives report, but liberals display, greater happiness. Science, 347(6227), 1243–1246. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260817(27)
41.
WoodardS. R.ChanL.ConwayL. G.III. (2021). In search of the cognitively complex person: Is there a meaningful trait component of cognitive complexity?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(2), 95–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320972299
42.
ZmigrodL.GoldenbergA. (2021). Cognition and emotion in extreme political action: Individual differences and dynamic interactions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721421993820
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.
