From Left to Right:

forestsaintregisOil and Offshore

Nov 8, 2013 (3 years and 9 months ago)

75 views

From Left to Right:

The layer
-
cake model of behavior

Timothy Bates & Gary Lewis


(British Journal of Psychology
, 2011)

ISSID Maryland

“I can tell you all the properties of a metal bar:
Its dimensions, its conductivity, ductility, specific
heat, density, and strength… But if you ask me
has it been bent, I have to know whether you
drove over it in a truck or not”


H.J.
Eysenck
, ISSID, Baltimore, ML, 1993

Personality Systems Model




There is as yet nothing like an adequate
taxonomy of processes, and creating such a
taxonomy should become a priority for
personality theorists




McCrae
and Costa (
2006, p
. 164
)

What’s the matter with everyone
(else)?


Why doesn’t everybody
v
ote the same?


Surely there’s a right answer?



At least that’s how we often talk:


“How can those people vote for Cameron’s
conservatives? It’s stupid!”



“Little Davy Cameroon[
sp
]: Wrong again”

Individual differences in political
orientation


Large
individual differences in political
behaviour
remain after controlling status
, gender, and
IQ


Schoon
, Cheng, Gale, Batty, &
Deary
,
2010


Heritable component


N. Martin et al., 1986;


Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005


Causes of difference may
be complex or indirect


Gerber
, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010;


Mondak
, Hibbing,
Canache
,
Seligson
, & Anderson,
2010.

Background: Personality correlates


Openness most
reliably associated with political
orientation


r

~ around
.3 with liberal political attitudes


Carney
et al., 2008; McCrae, 1996;


Trapnell
, 1994; Van
Hiel

&
Mervielde
,
2004.


Other traits mixed


C: Modest
relationships
of conscientiousness to orientation


Gosling
,
Rentfrow
, & Swann, 2003;
Mondak

&
Halperin
, 2008
)


Other
studies
found
no association (e.g. Alford & Hibbing, 2007)
.


A, E, N: Modest effects


e.g
.
Barbaranelli
,
Caprara
,
Vecchione
, & Fraley,
2007


More
studies
failed
to find associations


Alford
& Hibbing, 2007; Carney et al., 2008;
Mehrabian
, 1996;
Trapnell
,
1994.


Personality (other than O) is
unrelated to political
orientation (Alford & Hibbing, 2007; McCrae, 1996)
.

System Model of Education

(Bates 2011)

Ps
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
d
a
p
ta
ti
o
n
s
Se
ma
n
t
i
c
kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
Pro
ce
d
u
ra
l

kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
Au
d
i
t
o
ry
L
e
xi
co
n
.
.
.
G
ra
p
h
e
me
-p
h
o
n
e
me

co
n
ve
rsi
o
n

ru
l
e
s
O
b
j
e
c
ti
v
e

B
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
Exa
m
Sco
re
s
Jo
b

O
f
f
e
rs/
i
n
co
me
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
sh
i
p

St
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Health
Pa
t
e
n
t
s
Ex
te
r
n
a
l

I
n

u
e
n
c
e
s
C
u
l
t
u
ra
l

N
o
rms
L
i
f
e

Eve
n
t
s
Pa
re
n
t
s
Sch
o
o
l
T
e
a
ch
e
rs
Emp
l
o
ye
rs
Pe
e
rs/
f
ri
e
n
d
s
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

C
a
p
a
c
i
ti
e
s
G
e
n
e
s
co
d
i
n
g

f
o
r
n
e
u
ro
n
a
l

mi
g
ra
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

mo
d
u
l
a
ri
za
t
i
o
n
.
(H
O
X;

R
O
BO
;

SL
I
T

e
t
c.
N
e
u
ro
t
ra
n
smi
t
t
e
r
g
e
n
e
s;

(e
.
g
.

DRD2
)
R
e
ce
p
t
o
r
g
e
n
e
s
(e
.
g
.

G
-co
u
p
l
e
d

p
ro
t
e
i
n

re
ce
p
t
o
rs).
G
e
n
e

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
rs
(e
.
g
.

mi
R
N
As);
Biological
Ps
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Behavior
Evo
ca
t
i
ve

e
f
f
e
ct
s
What is the middle layer for politics?


Authoritarian
personality?


Adorno
,
Frenkel
-
Brunswik
, Levinson, & Sanford,
1950


Radicalism and tender
-
mindedness?


Eysenck

(1954
)


5
Moral
foundations


Haidt

(1997; 2011)

Haidt

(2007; 2009; 2011)

Moral Foundations


5 moral facets nested under two moral domains



Group
:
Valuing
of order, authority, in
-
group
loyalty, and aspirations to a pure life
.


Authority;


Purity;


In
-
group loyalty


Individualizing:
Concerned
for fairness and
ensuring that individuals are protected from
harm.


Fairness;


Harm

System Model for Politics

(Lewis & Bates, 2011)

Ps
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
d
a
p
ta
ti
o
n
s
Individualising
(h
a
rm;

f
a
i
rn
e
ss)
Group
(
Pu
ri
t
y;

Au
t
h
o
ri
t
y;

i
n
-
g
ro
u
p

)
O
b
j
e
c
ti
v
e

B
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
W
h
o

d
i
d

yo
u

vo
t
e

f
o
r?
Ex
te
r
n
a
l

I
n

u
e
n
c
e
s
C
u
l
t
u
ra
l

N
o
rms
L
i
f
e

Eve
n
t
s
C
u
rre
n
t

Eve
n
t
s
Ma
ri
t
a
l

St
a
t
u
s
C
h
i
l
d
re
n
Emp
l
o
ye
rs
Pe
e
rs/
f
ri
e
n
d
s
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

C
a
p
a
c
i
ti
e
s
G
e
n
e
s
co
d
i
n
g

f
o
r
n
e
u
ro
n
a
l

mo
d
u
l
a
ri
za
t
i
o
n
.
N
e
u
ro
t
ra
n
smi
t
t
e
r
g
e
n
e
s;

(e
.
g
.

DRD4; 5-
H
T
T
P;

)
R
e
ce
p
t
o
r
g
e
n
e
s
(e
.
g
.

O
XT
).
G
e
n
e

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
rs
(e
.
g
.

mi
R
N
As);
Biological
Ps
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Behavior
Evo
ca
t
i
ve

e
f
f
e
ct
s
Study

1


447 subjects: UK undergrads


Political orientation measure:


How
would you describe your political orientation?


Very liberal”
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
“Very conservative”.


Widely used, reliable, valid


Carney
et al., 2008; Fuchs &
Klingemann
, 1990;
Jost
, 2006)


NEO PI
-
R measure of personality


Haidt

MFQ

Three models tested


M1: Personality


moral values


political orientation


Described the data well without
modification


RMSEA
= .07,
χ
2

= 99.17 (
df

= 30,
p
<.001), CFI = .
95



Alternatives give poor fit as
judged by all indices
:


M2:
M
oral
values


Personality


political orientation


RMSEA = .10,
χ
2

= 107.80 (
df

= 31,
p
<.001), CFI = .
91



M3:

Personality


political orientation,


values


RMSEA = .12,
χ
2

= 226.48 (
df

= 32,
p
<.01), CFI = .85

Study 1 Results

Countervailing facets of N


Three facets of N significant for Individualizing


Countervailing effects:


Anxiety
β
=

.14


Self
-
consciousness
β
= .17


D
epression
β
=


.16


RMSEA
= .07,
χ
2

= 17.53 (
df

= 6,
p

< .01), CFI = .
99

Study 1 Summary


Individualising:


Linked to Openness
, Neuroticism, and
Agreeableness


Binding


Associated
with O, N, and
E



Binding
and individualizing accounted for
significant variance in political orientation
.


Direct relationship for O on politics

Does it replicate? (Study 2)


476 subjects


Different Country
: US (not UK)


Different demography
:

Not
student
-
based


Different
Big Five inventory
(
Rammstedt

& John, 2007),


Different (14

item) measure of politics
:


Internet pornography, sex education in public schools, banning
abortion and legalised gay marriage, allowing undocumented
immigrants to stay in the United States, higher taxes for the
wealthy, aggressive military response to dangerous foreign
groups, unemployment payments, gun control laws, offshore
drilling, and subsidised healthcare for the poor.


7
-
point
Likert

scales;

Alpha =.82


Study 2 Results

What does this mean?


Personality system model validated


Values mediate

links to
political orientation.

Ps
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
d
a
p
ta
ti
o
n
s
Individualising
(h
a
rm;

f
a
i
rn
e
ss)
Group
(
Pu
ri
t
y;

Au
t
h
o
ri
t
y;

i
n
-
g
ro
u
p

)
O
b
j
e
c
ti
v
e

B
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
W
h
o

d
i
d

yo
u

vo
t
e

f
o
r?
Ex
te
r
n
a
l

I
n

u
e
n
c
e
s
C
u
l
t
u
ra
l

N
o
rms
L
i
f
e

Eve
n
t
s
C
u
rre
n
t

Eve
n
t
s
Ma
ri
t
a
l

St
a
t
u
s
C
h
i
l
d
re
n
Emp
l
o
ye
rs
Pe
e
rs/
f
ri
e
n
d
s
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

C
a
p
a
c
i
ti
e
s
G
e
n
e
s
co
d
i
n
g

f
o
r
n
e
u
ro
n
a
l

mo
d
u
l
a
ri
za
t
i
o
n
.
N
e
u
ro
t
ra
n
smi
t
t
e
r
g
e
n
e
s;

(e
.
g
.

DRD4; 5-
H
T
T
P;

)
R
e
ce
p
t
o
r
g
e
n
e
s
(e
.
g
.

O
XT
).
G
e
n
e

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
rs
(e
.
g
.

mi
R
N
As);
Biological
Ps
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Behavior
Evo
ca
t
i
ve

e
f
f
e
ct
s
Moral values combined


Predict

political orientation


Conservative orientation:


Valuing order and hierarchy combined with a low
value on the treatment of individuals


Liberal or left
-
orientation


Low valuing of the group


Strong emphasis on equity and protecting people
from harm

MFQ associations


Individualizing (
fairness and harm).


Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness.


High binding (
authority, loyalty, pure life)


Extraversion,
Conscientiousness, l
ow
-
Openness

Countervailing Personality effects


Neuroticism raises both individualizing and
binding.


but individualizing and binding influence political
orientation in opposite directions.


Failures to associate neuroticism with political
orientation in previous research may be due
to these influences effectively cancelling out
at the level of politic orientation.

Facets can countervail too


Anxiety and self
-
consciousness both increase
individualizing


Depression scores relate negatively to this
value.


Wise to consider facet
-
level associations
alongside the more common domain
-
level
relations.

Articulating the left
-
right distinction


Imagine two individuals with moderate left
-
of
-
centre
orientations.


One may value group solidarity strongly, but have little
concern for individual liberties.


The other may value both the individual and the group to
an equal but moderate extent.


Self
-
report an identical orientation


Disagree strongly over particular policies:


F
or instance, immigration and free trade


High group loyalty


favour trade barriers and protection


Civil liberties: treatment of individuals divides opinion
among the left.

In Summary


Personality system model is a useful
framework for understanding the complex
relationship between personality and political
orientation.


Personality significantly shapes political
orientation


Largely indirectly, via an intermediary layer of
characteristic adaptations.


Countervailing effects common and important