I grew up believing that political affiliation was nearly completely based on demographics. Race, religion and age all strongly affect groups’ tendencies to choose one party over another, but these variables don’t tell the whole story.
Yale University’s (Conn.) political science department published research in 2011 that connected voters’ psychological traits with their candidates of choice. These choices help to explain personality and behavior and it makes sense that they would be correlated with political preference.
However, New York University Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, recently claimed that even these traits fail to illustrate the full psychological picture. In a 2012 TED Talk and in his book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” Haidt offers other explanations regarding moral belief demographics, in addition to physical and psychological ones.
Haidt defined six moral foundations across the political spectrum: harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity and freedom. Interestingly, left-wingers, right-wingers and libertarians all prioritized different foundations when questioned.
Similar research has found that liberals were most likely to frame their moral philosophy on harm and fairness. Conservatives were much more likely to emphasize the latter four, applying less weight to harm and fairness. This outcome makes sense when we consider issues like gun control. While a liberal may believe that limiting gun ownership is a means of preventing harm, a conservative is more likely to oppose gun control in favor of personal freedom. These questions extend to other policies as well.
With the goal of further explaining the impact of Haidt’s groundbreaking research, I’ve written examples for both sides of all six foundations. Try and see if you align more closely with Donald or Joe (completely coincidental names) in each story.
Harm and care + Freedom and oppression
Donald and Joe are having a conversation about COVID-19. Joe, a liberal Democrat, believes that mask mandates and lockdowns were necessary procedures to mitigate the HARM of the virus’s health risk. Donald, on the other hand, recognizes the pandemic’s HARM but believes that the lack of FREEDOM allowed by government-mandated policies overshadows the benefits such choices may have.
Fairness and cheating
Donald and Joe are discussing affirmative action in universities. A conservative Republican, Donald opposes race-based programs, citing UNFAIRNESS against Asian students, whom he sees as CHEATED out of spots at the schools. Joe, on the other hand, disagrees with Donald, instead believing that affirmative action increases FAIRNESS. Joe sees the programs as leveling the playing field, allowing many lower-income students of color a chance at elite higher education even if they didn’t have access to expensive test preparation.
Loyalty and betrayal
Donald and Joe are discussing Black athletes kneeling for the national anthem. For Donald, such action against patriotic symbols feels like a BETRAYAL — a refusal of membership in the American “tribe.” Check out this article on political tribalism to learn more. Joe’s more liberal background doesn’t necessitate particular opinions on LOYALTY, making him indifferent to, if not supportive of, the athletes’ actions.
Authority and rebellion
Donald and Joe are debating the impact of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement. Joe is more sympathetic to protesters’ intentions than Donald, who criticizes statements like, “Defund the police” for their REBELLIOUS nature. As a conservative, Donald is skeptical of rebellion due to often-overlooked and unintended consequences. Joe disagrees, questioning if the AUTHORITY in question deserves not to be REBELLED against.
Purity and impurity
Donald and Joe are discussing abortion. Donald views a fetus as a PURE, innocent being. He believes, religiously and morally, that to abort a fetus is to prevent a potential life from happening. He also believes that sex before marriage is IMPURE, and therefore, lacks sympathy for those impacted by unplanned pregnancies. Joe disagrees, arguing that the mother has the right to control what happens to her body, placing this consideration above that of the fetus’ viability. He does not view sex as PURE, so he sympathizes with those who become pregnant without resources to support a child.
If you sympathized more with Joe’s answers, you are more likely to be left-leaning. If you particularly identified with the harm and fairness aspects of the arguments more than others, you could probably call yourself a liberal.
If you sympathized more with Donald’s answers, you are more likely to be right-leaning. If you identified with all or many of the moral foundations present in the stories, you may have conservative tendencies.
Political psychology is a highly-nuanced analysis of politics, so many of you are likely in the middle. If you’re anything like me, when discussing politics, you find yourself somewhere in between.
Next time someone asks if you’re more left or right-brained, make sure to clarify that they’re not talking politics!
Ben Brodsky (25B) is from Scottsdale, Arizona.
