The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum Jesse Graham 1 *, Brian A. Nosek 2 , Jonathan Haidt 3 1 Psychology Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, 2 Psychology Depatment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America, 3 Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America Abstract We investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. 2,212 U.S. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire with their own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about ‘‘typical’’ liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup’s morality. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups. Citation: Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J (2012) The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum. PLoS ONE 7(12): e50092. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050092 Editor: Liane Young, Boston College, United States of America Received August 8, 2012; Accepted October 16, 2012; Published December 12, 2012 Copyright: ß 2012 Graham et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: This work was supported by Project Implicit. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: [email protected]Introduction ‘‘The national Democratic Party is immoral to the core. Any American who would vote for Democrats is guilty of fostering the worst kind of degeneracy. The leaders of this party are severely out of touch with mainstream, traditional American values. They are crusaders for perversion, for licentiousness, for nihilism and worse.’’ —Joseph Farah [1], World Net Daily ‘‘Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t.’’ —Michael Feingold [2], Village Voice For as long as there have been political rivalries there have been unflattering stereotypes painted by each side about the other. These stereotypes go far beyond cliche ´s about latte liberals and gun-rack conservatives; as the quotations above show, they often include the claim that the other side is immoral or downright evil. Of course, evil is in the eye of the beholder, and liberal and conservative eyes seem to be tuned to different wavelengths of immorality. For conservatives, liberals have an ‘‘anything goes’’ morality that says everything should be permitted for the sake of inclusion and diversity, no matter how bizarre or depraved (e.g., [3]). For liberals, conservatives lack basic moral compassion, especially for oppressed groups, and take a perverse joy in seeing the rich get richer while innocents suffer in poverty (e.g., [4]). These views may be caricatures, but they suggest that accusations of immorality may differ in content depending on the ideologies of the source and the target. In this paper we use Moral Foundations Theory [5] to investigate liberals’ and conservatives’ moral stereotypes of themselves and each other—that is, their expectations about how strongly typical partisans would endorse values related to each of five intuitive moral foundations. Our study was designed to answer three questions: 1. How accurate are these moral stereotypes? 2. Are they exaggerations of real differences in moral values? 3. Where on the political spectrum do we find the greatest accuracy? Rather than examining general beliefs about the immorality of the other side, we sought a finer resolution of the moral domain to provide the first identification of patterns of inaccuracy for moral concerns. Exaggeration and Accuracy in Stereotypes Although the literature on stereotypes has tended to concentrate on biases and inaccuracies, several reviews have noted the accuracy of many social stereotypes in terms of real group differences [6,7,8]. The notion that stereotypes could be exagger- ations of actual group differences was popularized by Allport [9] in The Nature of Prejudice: ‘‘a stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category’’ (p.191). Stereotypes have long been thought of as motivated exaggerations both of stereotypical PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
13
Embed
The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives ...mboyle/COGS2/readings/The...Theory [5] to investigate liberals’ and conservatives’ moral stereotypes of themselves and each
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives:Exaggeration of Differences across the Political SpectrumJesse Graham1*, Brian A. Nosek2, Jonathan Haidt3
1 Psychology Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, 2 Psychology Depatment, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America, 3 Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America
Abstract
We investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality,liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, andconservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, andphysical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. 2,212 U.S. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire withtheir own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypesabout ‘‘typical’’ liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsementbut exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypeswere not simple underestimations of the political outgroup’s morality. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated theideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about bothgroups.
Citation: Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J (2012) The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum. PLoSONE 7(12): e50092. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050092
Editor: Liane Young, Boston College, United States of America
Received August 8, 2012; Accepted October 16, 2012; Published December 12, 2012
Copyright: � 2012 Graham et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by Project Implicit. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation ofthe manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ing concerns, and doing the opposite for liberals) is plotted across
the full ideological spectrum in Figure 3.
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
Ta
ble
1.
Pre
dic
ted
and
actu
alM
ora
lFo
un
dat
ion
sQ
ue
stio
nn
aire
sub
sco
rem
ean
san
dst
and
ard
de
viat
ion
s.
An
swe
rsa
sT
yp
ica
lL
ibe
ral
Act
ua
lL
ibe
ral
an
swe
rsA
nsw
ers
as
Ty
pic
al
Co
nse
rva
tiv
eA
ctu
al
Co
nse
rva
tiv
ea
nsw
ers
All
Lib
era
lsE
xtr
em
eL
ibe
rals
All
Co
nse
rva
tiv
es
Ex
tre
me
Co
nse
rva
tiv
es
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
3.7
70
.93
4.0
00
.80
4.1
10
.80
2.4
61
.11
3.4
30
.95
3.2
31
.11
Fair
ne
ss3
.87
0.9
03
.78
0.8
24
.00
0.7
62
.29
1.0
73
.11
0.9
13
.11
1.1
2
Ing
rou
p2
.53
0.8
92
.60
0.9
42
.40
0.9
53
.12
0.9
02
.72
0.9
82
.46
1.1
7
Au
tho
rity
2.3
60
.86
2.4
40
.84
2.2
60
.86
3.4
10
.84
2.8
80
.77
3.0
40
.87
Pu
rity
2.0
61
.00
2.3
30
.97
2.1
41
.02
3.3
80
.97
3.0
20
.95
3.1
41
.21
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m3
.72
0.9
23
.53
0.8
83
.64
0.9
02
.72
1.1
02
.98
0.9
22
.92
0.9
5
Fair
ne
ss3
.79
0.8
73
.76
0.7
94
.00
0.7
52
.55
1.0
23
.05
0.7
82
.90
0.9
1
Ing
rou
p1
.81
0.8
11
.85
0.8
81
.73
0.8
42
.96
0.8
92
.32
0.8
12
.52
0.9
5
Au
tho
rity
2.0
51
.09
2.3
90
.99
2.0
50
.97
4.0
80
.94
3.5
80
.74
3.9
30
.74
Pu
rity
1.6
21
.12
1.6
31
.09
1.3
81
.13
3.7
41
.12
3.0
41
.01
3.2
71
.03
An
swe
rsa
sT
yp
ica
lL
ibe
ral
Act
ua
lL
ibe
ral
an
swe
rsA
nsw
ers
as
Ty
pic
al
Co
nse
rva
tiv
eA
ctu
al
Co
nse
rva
tiv
ea
nsw
ers
All
Lib
era
lsE
xtr
em
eL
ibe
rals
All
Co
nse
rva
tiv
es
Ex
tre
me
Co
nse
rva
tiv
es
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Me
an
SD
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
3.8
11
.03
3.7
70
.96
4.3
10
.53
2.3
51
.22
3.4
31
.10
3.5
71
.16
Fair
ne
ss3
.85
1.0
33
.57
0.9
63
.92
0.7
02
.25
1.2
23
.22
1.0
43
.35
1.1
5
Ing
rou
p2
.36
1.2
72
.93
1.2
32
.92
1.3
83
.12
1.3
03
.18
1.3
33
.39
1.2
2
Au
tho
rity
2.3
41
.13
2.9
50
.95
2.4
81
.15
3.8
10
.98
3.3
01
.03
3.5
41
.00
Pu
rity
1.7
31
.16
2.5
31
.22
2.1
71
.40
3.5
21
.12
3.1
61
.19
3.5
41
.13
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m3
.73
1.1
53
.23
1.0
33
.50
1.1
12
.32
1.3
82
.78
1.1
62
.84
1.1
7
Fair
ne
ss4
.18
1.0
13
.95
0.8
14
.13
0.7
73
.07
1.3
03
.63
0.9
93
.41
1.1
7
Au
tho
rity
2.3
91
.27
3.4
00
.96
2.9
61
.17
4.2
60
.98
4.0
00
.79
4.1
10
.95
Pu
rity
1.7
21
.38
2.7
11
.18
2.1
01
.41
3.6
41
.21
3.5
30
.98
4.0
10
.95
No
te.T
op
pan
el
sho
ws
pre
dic
ted
and
actu
alan
swe
rsfo
rth
est
ud
ysa
mp
le,
and
bo
tto
mp
ane
lsh
ow
sth
esa
me
for
the
com
par
iso
nto
the
nat
ion
ally
-re
pre
sen
tati
ved
atas
et,
usi
ng
on
lyit
em
sco
mm
on
tob
oth
dat
ase
ts(n
oit
em
sin
com
mo
nfo
rIn
gro
up
jud
gm
en
ts).
Sam
ple
size
sfo
re
ach
stat
isti
c,as
we
llas
pre
dic
ted
‘‘typ
ical
’’an
swe
rsb
roke
nd
ow
nb
ylib
era
ls,
mo
de
rate
s,an
dco
nse
rvat
ive
s,ca
nb
efo
un
din
the
sup
ple
me
nt.
do
i:10
.13
71
/jo
urn
al.p
on
e.0
05
00
92
.t0
01
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
Ta
ble
2.
Stat
isti
cal
com
par
iso
ns
of
actu
alan
dp
red
icte
dan
swe
rsfo
rlib
era
ls,
mo
de
rate
s,an
dco
nse
rvat
ive
s.
Ty
pic
al
Lib
era
la
nsw
ers
com
pa
red
tosa
mp
lea
ve
rag
e:
Ty
pic
al
Co
nse
rva
tiv
ea
nsw
ers
com
pa
red
tosa
mp
lea
ve
rag
e:
Lib
Mo
dC
on
Lib
Mo
dC
on
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
21
.89
12
81
.15
20
.11
26
.33
42
7.3
62
0.6
12
6.4
73
85
.75
20
.66
21
7.9
35
71
.72
21
.50
29
.08
53
2.8
92
0.7
92
5.1
25
35
.73
20
.44
Fair
ne
ss5
.22
12
70
.77
0.2
92
2.6
54
35
.51
20
.25
0.1
44
18
.73
0.0
12
15
.99
58
0.9
22
1.3
32
7.4
45
26
.33
20
.65
23
.81
53
2.3
62
0.3
3
Ing
rou
p2
3.4
41
25
3.7
72
0.1
91
.22
52
0.9
40
.11
0.4
94
81
.33
0.0
47
.72
46
9.8
70
.71
5.1
25
46
.99
0.4
41
.88
54
3.7
40
.16
Au
tho
rity
21
.91
12
64
.17
20
.11
1.0
94
64
.44
0.1
02
3.8
54
41
.87
20
.37
9.8
25
72
.81
0.8
27
.41
52
7.6
50
.65
6.3
55
41
.44
0.5
5
Pu
rity
24
.72
12
78
.15
20
.26
20
.77
49
1.6
32
0.0
72
7.3
34
51
.77
20
.69
6.5
35
31
.09
0.5
72
.30
53
9.9
60
.20
3.7
45
45
.00
0.3
2
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m6
.51
12
86
.48
0.3
60
.45
46
2.6
70
.04
1.2
84
75
.18
0.1
22
5.1
66
26
.68
20
.41
20
.90
52
4.0
22
0.0
82
1.2
55
05
.71
20
.11
Fair
ne
ss6
.04
12
79
.04
0.3
42
3.7
44
28
.03
20
.36
23
.73
48
1.9
32
0.3
42
9.3
77
00
.27
20
.71
24
.47
51
2.5
62
0.3
92
3.6
75
03
.77
20
.33
Ing
rou
p2
3.7
91
27
0.4
92
0.2
11
.52
57
6.1
30
.13
2.0
65
51
.54
0.1
81
2.1
35
80
.37
1.0
17
.59
52
9.0
00
.66
5.8
35
21
.19
0.5
1
Au
tho
rity
28
.53
12
84
.70
20
.48
20
.35
44
5.3
32
0.0
32
4.9
64
48
.14
20
.47
8.6
66
70
.83
0.6
74
.77
47
5.3
00
.44
7.3
15
23
.64
0.6
4
Pu
rity
23
.87
12
78
.19
20
.22
4.7
44
94
.39
0.4
31
.10
46
8.4
20
.10
10
.51
58
0.1
40
.87
4.4
75
09
.34
0.4
07
.99
52
3.1
50
.70
Ty
pic
al
Lib
era
la
nsw
ers
com
pa
red
tosa
mp
lee
xtr
em
e:
Ty
pic
al
Co
nse
rva
tiv
ea
nsw
ers
com
pa
red
tosa
mp
lee
xtr
em
e:
Lib
Mo
dC
on
Lib
Mo
dC
on
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
23
.01
32
6.8
02
0.3
32
5.7
84
78
.58
20
.53
25
.87
46
1.5
12
0.5
52
6.0
43
6.1
72
2.0
12
2.9
34
1.8
42
0.9
12
1.2
04
0.9
72
0.3
8
Fair
ne
ss0
.11
33
9.2
70
.01
24
.62
47
5.8
62
0.4
22
2.6
04
60
.96
20
.24
26
.37
35
.97
22
.12
23
.21
41
.19
21
.00
21
.68
40
.26
20
.53
Ing
rou
p0
.37
30
4.7
70
.04
3.1
94
34
.43
0.3
12
.59
43
3.8
40
.25
4.9
63
4.9
31
.68
3.8
03
8.7
81
.22
2.3
63
8.4
00
.76
Au
tho
rity
1.5
03
08
.12
0.1
72
.95
45
6.3
70
.28
20
.76
44
7.1
92
0.0
72
.85
36
.41
0.9
52
.27
42
.60
0.6
91
.82
40
.53
0.5
7
Pu
rity
20
.83
31
6.9
82
0.0
91
.39
44
0.4
60
.13
23
.59
44
0.1
92
0.3
41
.99
35
.28
0.6
70
.44
39
.54
0.1
41
.08
38
.00
0.3
5
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m2
.96
35
2.9
50
.31
20
.96
48
4.7
02
0.0
92
0.3
54
82
.81
20
.03
21
.99
55
.74
20
.53
20
.09
67
.70
20
.02
20
.27
67
.93
20
.07
Fair
ne
ss0
.21
37
1.5
40
.02
25
.85
49
1.5
82
0.5
32
6.2
54
90
.83
20
.56
23
.24
55
.83
20
.87
21
.22
64
.72
20
.30
20
.82
63
.53
20
.21
Ing
rou
p2
0.8
93
52
.20
20
.09
2.9
04
51
.04
0.2
73
.28
46
4.3
70
.30
4.1
55
2.3
51
.15
2.5
16
0.9
30
.64
1.6
25
9.5
30
.42
Au
tho
rity
21
.62
37
7.0
72
0.1
73
.17
49
3.3
90
.29
20
.31
49
4.1
92
0.0
31
.50
58
.22
0.3
90
.14
82
.66
0.0
31
.08
65
.07
0.2
7
Pu
rity
0.3
43
38
.81
0.0
46
.06
47
1.2
00
.56
3.1
74
83
.64
0.2
93
.53
54
.63
0.9
61
.06
72
.24
0.2
53
.02
58
.37
0.7
9
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
Ta
ble
2.
Co
nt.
Ty
pic
al
Lib
era
la
nsw
ers
com
pa
red
tore
pre
sen
tati
ve
sam
ple
av
era
ge
:T
yp
ica
lC
on
serv
ati
ve
an
swe
rsco
mp
are
dto
rep
rese
nta
tiv
esa
mp
lea
ve
rag
e:
Lib
Mo
dC
on
Lib
Mo
dC
on
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
Ty
pic
al
Lib
era
la
nsw
ers
com
pa
red
tore
pre
sen
tati
ve
sam
ple
av
era
ge
:T
yp
ica
lC
on
serv
ati
ve
an
swe
rsco
mp
are
dto
rep
rese
nta
tiv
esa
mp
lea
ve
rag
e:
Lib
Mo
dC
on
Lib
Mo
dC
on
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
2.4
63
91
.36
0.2
52
1.0
85
15
.34
20
.09
21
.45
48
8.1
52
0.1
32
17
.92
68
0.0
02
1.3
72
8.8
05
50
.21
20
.75
26
.56
56
0.3
12
0.5
5
Fair
ne
ss6
.63
40
1.8
10
.66
0.0
75
09
.87
0.0
11
.31
49
5.6
30
.12
21
7.8
86
99
.29
21
.35
28
.48
53
3.4
42
0.7
32
3.7
85
38
.53
20
.33
Ing
rou
p2
7.8
54
02
.02
20
.78
23
.28
50
9.0
02
0.2
92
3.9
74
93
.61
20
.36
0.3
36
39
.17
0.0
32
0.4
35
71
.93
20
.04
22
.58
57
0.1
62
0.2
2
Au
tho
rity
27
.30
46
1.2
02
0.6
82
4.6
45
06
.78
20
.41
29
.26
48
8.1
22
0.8
48
.02
63
8.6
80
.63
4.9
65
79
.52
0.4
16
.54
58
9.2
00
.54
Pu
rity
21
0.0
33
94
.04
21
.01
24
.40
50
0.5
62
0.3
92
9.0
94
95
.01
20
.82
6.7
36
19
.98
0.5
41
.83
57
6.9
50
.15
1.9
05
84
.48
0.1
6
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m8
.37
43
5.8
30
.80
3.3
85
12
.00
0.3
02
.95
51
3.6
80
.26
27
.08
77
8.4
72
0.5
12
1.7
25
23
.85
20
.15
23
.12
51
0.3
02
0.2
8
Fair
ne
ss6
.64
44
0.9
00
.63
0.4
84
91
.21
0.0
42
0.3
15
03
.19
20
.03
29
.24
82
7.5
72
0.6
42
3.2
15
02
.35
20
.29
23
.56
46
8.9
52
0.3
3
Au
tho
rity
21
2.9
15
23
.46
21
.13
27
.01
49
4.9
72
0.6
32
10
.06
49
8.3
42
0.9
04
.69
80
4.2
10
.33
2.3
44
73
.33
0.2
23
.85
52
3.8
70
.34
Pu
rity
21
2.8
44
62
.81
21
.19
24
.84
51
2.5
92
0.4
32
7.6
15
15
.71
20
.67
2.7
87
97
.42
0.2
02
1.5
84
75
.99
20
.14
1.5
05
34
.26
0.1
3
Ty
pic
al
Lib
era
la
nsw
ers
com
pa
red
tore
pre
sen
tati
ve
sam
ple
ex
tre
me
:T
yp
ica
lC
on
serv
ati
ve
an
swe
rsco
mp
are
dto
rep
rese
nta
tiv
esa
mp
lee
xtr
em
e:
Lib
Mo
dC
on
Lib
Mo
dC
on
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
td
fd
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
22
.17
30
.64
20
.78
22
.79
51
.19
20
.78
22
.85
55
.95
20
.76
27
.91
40
.32
22
.49
24
.55
47
.82
21
.32
23
.68
46
.42
21
.08
Fair
ne
ss0
.59
28
.32
0.2
22
1.4
54
0.0
02
0.4
62
1.0
23
8.8
02
0.3
32
7.7
84
0.1
72
2.4
62
4.3
34
7.4
72
1.2
62
2.3
14
6.8
32
0.6
7
Ing
rou
p2
2.9
62
6.4
12
1.1
52
1.3
32
9.5
12
0.4
92
1.5
83
0.7
82
0.5
72
0.8
54
2.2
62
0.2
62
1.1
25
0.2
62
0.3
22
2.1
84
9.9
52
0.6
2
Au
tho
rity
20
.46
26
.68
20
.18
0.0
83
0.4
20
.03
21
.76
30
.62
20
.64
1.8
94
1.5
80
.59
1.0
14
8.0
80
.29
1.7
94
6.2
40
.53
Pu
rity
22
.24
26
.27
20
.88
20
.44
28
.53
20
.16
22
.48
28
.84
20
.92
0.7
74
1.4
60
.24
21
.00
48
.96
20
.29
21
.05
47
.34
20
.31
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m1
.87
26
.89
0.7
20
.26
30
.71
0.0
90
.14
31
.68
0.0
52
3.0
04
3.6
92
0.9
12
1.0
35
1.8
82
0.2
92
1.7
15
1.3
62
0.4
8
Fair
ne
ss1
.43
27
.50
0.5
42
0.5
93
6.6
72
0.2
02
0.9
23
5.6
62
0.3
12
2.5
04
2.7
92
0.7
62
0.3
44
9.4
92
0.1
02
0.5
25
0.7
22
0.1
5
Au
tho
rity
22
.81
27
.16
21
.08
21
.07
31
.59
20
.38
22
.24
31
.74
20
.80
1.1
34
2.0
10
.35
0.3
75
1.1
30
.10
1.0
24
6.0
20
.30
Pu
rity
22
.38
26
.72
20
.92
0.1
43
0.1
00
.05
20
.93
29
.83
20
.34
21
.28
44
.84
20
.38
22
.85
59
.59
20
.74
22
.05
50
.30
20
.58
No
te.
To
pp
ane
lco
mp
are
sp
red
icte
dan
dac
tual
answ
ers
for
the
stu
dy
sam
ple
,an
db
ott
om
pan
el
com
par
es
pre
dic
tio
ns
toac
tual
answ
ers
inth
en
atio
nal
ly-r
ep
rese
nta
tive
dat
ase
t,u
sin
go
nly
ite
ms
com
mo
nto
bo
thd
atas
ets
(no
ite
ms
inco
mm
on
for
Ing
rou
pju
dg
me
nts
).Li
b=
Lib
era
lp
arti
cip
ants
,M
od
=M
od
era
tep
arti
cip
ants
,C
on
=C
on
serv
ativ
ep
arti
cip
ants
.Fo
rmu
las
use
dto
calc
ula
tet,
df,
and
dw
ith
ou
tas
sum
ing
eq
ual
sam
ple
size
so
rva
rian
ces
can
be
fou
nd
inth
esu
pp
lem
en
t.d
oi:1
0.1
37
1/j
ou
rnal
.po
ne
.00
50
09
2.t
00
2
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
Discussion
Results indicate that people at all points on the political
spectrum are at least intuitively aware of the actual differences in
moral concerns between liberals and conservatives: they correctly
predicted that liberals would care more than conservatives about
the two individualizing foundations and that conservatives would
care more than liberals about the three binding foundations. The
results also confirm previous studies of partisan misperception [24]
by showing that, in general, people overestimate how dramatically
liberals and conservatives differ. Remarkably, people even morally
stereotype their own ingroup, with liberals overestimating liberals’
strong individualizing concerns and underestimating liberals’ weak
binding concerns, and conservatives exaggerating conservatives’
moral concerns in the opposite directions.
Our results go beyond previous studies, however, in finding and
explaining an otherwise puzzling result: liberals were the least
accurate. We presented three competing hypotheses about
Figure 1. Comparisons of moral stereotypes to actual conservative-liberal differences in moral foundation endorsement.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050092.g001
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
Ta
ble
3.
Act
ual
con
serv
ativ
e-l
ibe
ral
dif
fere
nce
sco
mp
are
dto
tho
sep
red
icte
db
ylib
era
ls,
mo
de
rate
s,an
dco
nse
rvat
ive
s.
Act
ua
ld
iffe
ren
ces
(co
n-
lib
):P
red
icte
dd
iffe
ren
ces
(Ty
pic
al
con
-T
yp
ica
lli
b)
Sa
mp
lea
ve
rag
eS
am
ple
ex
tre
me
sE
ve
ryo
ne
Lib
Mo
dC
on
Dif
fere
nce
S.E
.D
iffe
ren
ceS
.E.
Dif
fere
nce
S.E
.D
iffe
ren
ceS
.E.
Dif
fere
nce
S.E
.D
iffe
ren
ceS
.E.
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
20
.57
0.0
72
0.8
80
.20
21
.31
0.0
42
1.7
80
.05
20
.97
0.0
92
0.5
80
.09
Fair
ne
ss2
0.6
70
.06
20
.89
0.2
02
1.5
70
.04
22
.02
0.0
52
1.1
40
.09
20
.99
0.0
9
Ing
rou
p0
.12
0.0
70
.06
0.2
10
.58
0.0
40
.78
0.0
50
.46
0.0
80
.24
0.0
8
Au
tho
rity
0.4
30
.06
0.7
70
.16
1.0
50
.04
1.0
90
.05
0.9
00
.08
1.1
10
.08
Pu
rity
0.6
90
.07
0.9
90
.22
1.3
20
.04
1.3
90
.05
0.9
50
.09
1.5
30
.09
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m2
0.5
50
.07
20
.72
0.1
52
1.0
00
.04
21
.25
0.0
62
0.6
50
.09
20
.74
0.0
9
Fair
ne
ss2
0.7
00
.06
21
.10
0.1
42
1.2
40
.04
21
.63
0.0
52
0.8
00
.08
20
.75
0.0
8
Ing
rou
p0
.47
0.0
60
.79
0.1
51
.15
0.0
41
.41
0.0
50
.93
0.0
70
.76
0.0
7
Au
tho
rity
1.2
00
.06
1.8
90
.13
2.0
40
.04
2.2
20
.05
1.5
90
.10
2.0
40
.09
Pu
rity
1.4
10
.07
1.8
90
.17
2.1
20
.05
2.4
70
.06
1.4
70
.10
1.9
70
.09
Act
ua
ld
iffe
ren
ces
(co
n-
lib
):P
red
icte
dd
iffe
ren
ces
(Ty
pic
al
con
-T
yp
ica
lli
b)
Sa
mp
lea
ve
rag
eS
am
ple
ex
tre
me
sE
ve
ryo
ne
Lib
Mo
dC
on
Dif
fere
nce
S.E
.D
iffe
ren
ceS
.E.
Dif
fere
nce
S.E
.D
iffe
ren
ceS
.E.
Dif
fere
nce
S.E
.D
iffe
ren
ceS
.E.
Re
leva
nce
:H
arm
20
.34
0.0
92
0.7
40
.22
21
.45
0.0
52
1.8
90
.06
21
.08
0.1
02
0.8
10
.10
Fair
ne
ss2
0.3
50
.08
20
.57
0.2
32
1.6
00
.05
22
.14
0.0
62
1.1
40
.10
20
.82
0.1
0
Ing
rou
p0
.25
0.1
10
.47
0.3
40
.76
0.0
50
.98
0.0
70
.57
0.1
10
.45
0.1
2
Au
tho
rity
0.3
50
.08
1.0
60
.28
1.4
80
.04
1.4
70
.06
1.2
20
.10
1.7
80
.09
Pu
rity
0.6
30
.10
1.3
70
.33
1.7
90
.05
2.0
10
.06
1.2
80
.10
1.8
00
.10
Jud
gm
en
ts:
Har
m2
0.4
50
.09
20
.66
0.2
92
1.4
20
.05
21
.75
0.0
72
0.9
60
.11
21
.07
0.1
1
Fair
ne
ss2
0.3
20
.08
20
.72
0.2
42
1.1
10
.05
21
.50
0.0
62
0.6
60
.10
20
.63
0.1
0
Au
tho
rity
0.6
00
.08
1.1
50
.28
1.8
70
.05
2.0
00
.06
1.5
10
.10
1.9
20
.10
Pu
rity
0.8
20
.09
1.9
10
.32
1.9
20
.05
2.2
60
.07
1.2
40
.12
1.8
20
.11
No
te.T
op
pan
el
sho
ws
pre
dic
ted
and
actu
alan
swe
rsfo
rth
est
ud
ysa
mp
le,
and
bo
tto
mp
ane
lsh
ow
sth
esa
me
for
the
com
par
iso
nto
the
nat
ion
ally
-re
pre
sen
tati
ved
atas
et,
usi
ng
on
lyit
em
sco
mm
on
tob
oth
dat
ase
ts(n
oit
em
sin
com
mo
nfo
rIn
gro
up
jud
gm
en
ts).
S.E.
=st
and
ard
err
or
of
the
dif
fere
nce
be
twe
en
the
me
ans,
bas
ed
on
po
ole
dst
and
ard
de
viat
ion
san
dn
ot
assu
min
ge
qu
alsi
zes
or
vari
ance
sin
the
two
gro
up
s.Li
b=
Lib
era
lp
red
icto
rs,
Mo
d=
Mo
de
rate
pre
dic
tors
,C
on
=C
on
serv
ativ
ep
red
icto
rs.
do
i:10
.13
71
/jo
urn
al.p
on
e.0
05
00
92
.t0
03
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
accuracy: 1) We found some support for the hypothesis that
moderates would be most accurate, which they were in the case of
the binding foundations. However, and most crucially, partisan
inaccuracies were not mirror images of each other (in which case
the red and blue lines in Figure 2 would have opposite slopes). On
the contrary, liberals and conservatives both tended to exaggerate
their binding foundation differences by underestimating the typical
liberal and overestimating the typical conservative. 2) We found no
support for the hypothesis that liberals would be most accurate;
liberals were the least accurate about conservatives and about
liberals. The largest inaccuracies were in liberals’ underestimations
of conservatives’ Harm and Fairness concerns, and liberals further
exaggerated the political differences by overestimating their own
such concerns. 3) Finally, we found some support for the
hypothesis that conservatives would be the most accurate, which
they were in the case of the individualizing foundations. In line
with Moral Foundations Theory, liberals dramatically underesti-
mated the Harm and Fairness concerns of conservatives. These
findings add to the literature on moral foundations by demon-
strating a novel form of pragmatic validity [16] for the theory:
conceptualizing and measuring the moral stereotypes people have
of different social groups.
While we obtained a nationally-representative sample for
comparison of MFQ scores, it is important to note that the
predicted answers as typical liberals/conservatives all came from a
non-representative Project Implicit sample. However, the partic-
ipants in this study do ‘‘run the gamut’’ across the ideological
spectrum, from very liberal to very conservative, and Figure 3
demonstrates exaggeration across all 7 points on the political
orientation item. Extreme liberals exaggerated the moral political
differences the most, and moderate conservatives did so the least.
Further, Nosek, Banaji, and Jost [34] showed evidence that strong
conservatives at Project Implicit preferred conservative candidates,
both implicitly and explicitly, as much as strong liberals preferred
liberal candidates. Finally, across Project Implicit studies the
liberal and conservative extremes show equivalent or near-
equivalent extremity in implicit and explicit liking and identity
with partisan parties, politicians, and positions [35,36].
Nevertheless, we cannot completely rule out reference effects in
these predictions based on non-representative sampling. In
particular, while the conservatives in this sample are indeed
Figure 2. Moral stereotypes about the typical liberal’s and typical conservative’s endorsement of the binding foundations(Ingroup, Authority, Purity), and individualizing foundations (Harm, Fairness).doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050092.g002
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
conservative, they may also have different social experiences than
a representative conservative. For example, conservatives who live
in urban or predominately liberal enclaves might have greater
insight into liberal beliefs than conservatives who live in rural or
predominately conservative enclaves. A useful follow-up investi-
gation would examine the effect of exposure to liberals and
conservatives in one’s social context. If this is impactful, and if the
present sample is systematically skewed in this regard, then
accounting for social context may qualify the present conclusion of
conservatives having greater accuracy than liberals. It is also worth
Figure 3. Exaggeration of moral differences across political ideology.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050092.g003
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 11 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092
noting that our single ideology item did not allow for participants
to indicate that they were libertarian, or that they were liberal on
social issues but conservative on economic issues. Research on
libertarians has revealed a pattern of moral concerns unlike that of
liberals, moderates, or conservatives [37]; this finding, along with
their coherent ideological identity separate from liberals and
conservatives, makes libertarians a particularly interesting sample
for future studies using this paradigm. Do libertarians share the
moral stereotypes about liberals and conservatives shown by
participants in the current study? Do people hold consistent moral
stereotypes about the ‘‘typical’’ libertarian, and are they accurate?
Besides addressing these questions, future work should investigate
different possible antecedents of moral stereotyping, such as
differential exposure to ideological caricatures in the media.
The ideological ‘‘culture war’’ in the U.S. is, in part, an honest
disagreement about ends (moral values that each side wants to
advance), as well as an honest disagreement about means (laws and
policies) to advance those ends. But our findings suggest that there
is an additional process at work: partisans on each side exaggerate
the degree to which the other side pursues moral ends that are
different from their own. Much of this exaggeration comes from
each side underestimating the degree to which the other side
shares its own values. But some of it comes, unexpectedly, from
overestimating the degree to which ‘‘typical’’ members of one’s
own side endorse its values. Studies of ingroup stereotypes tend to
show that they are more accurate and less exaggerated than
stereotypes about an outgroup [38], especially for higher-status
groups like Whites [39]. However, the current study found that
moral stereotypes about an ideological group can be just as
exaggerated when held by ingroup members as by outgroup
members, and sometimes even more so. We suspect that this is
partially due to the fact that one can imagine members of one’s
own ideological group more extreme than oneself; people could in
fact be motivated to differentiate themselves from their ideological
group, imagining ‘‘typical’’ group members to be more extreme in
their moral profile (it would be interesting in future work to obtain
measures of how ‘‘typical’’ participants rate themselves to be –
perhaps everyone likes to see themselves as atypical when it comes
to politics). But this may also be a unique feature of moral
stereotypes, in that people are motivated to exaggerate the moral
values of their group in ways that are in line with those same
values.
The asymmetrical pattern found in moral stereotypes about the
individualizing foundations fits remarkably well with recent work
on ideological opponent and own-group misperceptions. Examin-
ing co-perceptions of conflicting groups such as pro-life/pro-
choice and hawks/doves, Chambers and Melnyk [40] found that
partisans saw their adversaries as motivated by an opposition to
their own core values, rather than being motivated by promotion
of the adversaries’ values. This is consistent with the moral
stereotypes that liberals appear to have of conservatives: liberals
see conservatives as being motivated by an opposition to liberals’
core values of compassion and fairness, as well as being motivated
by their own (non-moral) values of ingroup loyalty, respect for
authorities and traditions, and spiritual purity (they may be
particularly likely to focus on issues in which these values come
into conflict). This misperception is asymmetrical: conservatives
did underestimate liberal moral concerns with the binding
foundations, but they were no more likely to underestimate than
liberals themselves.
It is striking that instead of basic partisan outgroup derogation,
in which both sides predict that the other is less moral in general,
we found foundation-specific moral stereotypes about liberals and
conservatives—and these moral stereotypes were largely shared by
all. Participants across the political spectrum exaggerated liberal
moral disregard for Ingroup, Authority, and Purity, and conser-
vative disregard for Harm and Fairness—that is, exaggerations of
the patterns predicted by Moral Foundations Theory. This
suggests that moral stereotypes might be unique in that they are
motivated (partisans want to cast the other side as immoral) and
yet partisans share the same moral stereotypes about either side.
Even more surprising, they share both of these moral stereotypes
with moderates, who are presumably not as motivated to
stereotype either side. More research is needed to further delineate
the moral stereotypes of political partisans, for instance to see if
moral stereotypes about members of political parties mirror those
about ideological groups, both in two-party political systems like
the U.S. and in multiparty systems like Italy. We also hope that
future studies can use Moral Foundations Theory’s finer resolution
of the moral domain to investigate specific moral stereotypes along
other social groupings, such as race, gender, social class, age, or
weight.
Chambers and Melnyk [40] conclude: ‘‘Partisan group mem-
bers suffer the misapprehension that their adversaries work to
actively and willfully oppose their own sides’ interests rather than
promoting the values that are central to their adversaries’
doctrine…it is this perception that may spawn the feelings of
distrust and animosity that partisans feel toward their rivals and
may ultimately fuel conflict between partisan groups’’ (p.1309). In
this study, we focused on the moral values of ideological
opponents, and their perceptions of the moral values of either
side, in order to understand the moral ‘‘distrust and animosity’’
endemic to the liberal-conservative culture war. We found that
there are real moral differences between liberals and conservatives,
but people across the political spectrum exaggerate the magnitude
of these differences and in so doing create opposing moral
stereotypes that are shared by all. Calling attention to this unique
form of stereotyping, and to the fact that liberal and conservative
moral values are less polarized than most people think, could be
effective ways of reducing the distrust and animosity of current
ideological divisions.
Acknowledgments
We thank Christian Smith and Steve Vaisey for making available their
nationally-representative moral foundations data, and we thank Selin
Kesebir for assistance with statistical formulas.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: JG BAN JH. Performed the
experiments: JG. Analyzed the data: JG BAN. Wrote the paper: JG BAN
JH.
References
1. Farah J (2003) Democrats are immoral. World Net Daily November 20.
Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur Rev Soc
Psychol 18: 36–88.13. Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In
Worchel S, Austin WG, editors. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
14. Greene S (2004) Social identity theory and party identification. Soc Sci Q 85:
136–153.15. Judd CM, Park B (1993) Definition and accuracy in the assessment of social
stereotypes. Psychol Rev 100: 109–128.16. Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J, Iyer R, Koleva S, et al. (2011) Mapping the moral
domain. J Pers Soc Psychol 101: 366–385.17. Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different
sets of moral foundations. J Pers Soc Psychol 96: 1029–1046.
18. Cannon PR, Schnall S, White M (2011) Transgressions and expressions:Affective facial muscle activity predicts moral judgments. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2:
325–331.19. Graham J, Haidt J (2011) Sacred values and evil adversaries: A moral
foundations approach. In: Shaver P, Mikulincer M, editors. The Social
Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil. New York:APA Books.
20. McAdams DP, Albaugh M, Farber E, Daniels J, Logan RL, et al. (2008) Familymetaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their
lives. J Pers Soc Psychol 95: 978–990.21. Van Leeuwen F, Park JH (2009) Perceptions of social dangers moral foundations
and political orientation. Pers Indiv Diff 47: 169–173.
22. Robinson RJ, Keltner D, Ward A, Ross L (1995) Actual versus assumeddifferences in construal: ‘‘Naive realism’’ in intergroup perception and conflict.
J Pers Soc Psychol 68: 404–417.
23. Dawes RM, Singer D, Lemons F (1972) An experimental analysis of the contrast
effect and its implications for intergroup communication and the indirectassessment of attitude. J Pers Soc Psychol 21: 281–295.
24. Chambers JR, Baron RS, Inman ML (2006) Misperceptions in intergroup
conflict: Disagreeing about what we disagree about. Psychol Sci 17: 38–45.25. Cohen GL (2003) Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence
on political beliefs. J Pers Soc Psychol 85: 808–822.26. Greenberg J, Jonas E (2003) Psychological motives and political orientation—the
left the right and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003) Psychol Bull 129: 376–
382.27. Rokeach M (1956) Political and religious dogmatism: An alternative to the
authoritarian personality. Psychol Mon 70: 43.28. Tetlock PE (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British
House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 365–375.29. Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, Sulloway FJ (2003) Political conservatism as
motivated social cognition. Psychol Bull 129: 339–375.
30. Sibley CG, Duckitt J (2008) Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis andtheoretical review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 12: 248–279.
31. Carter JD, Hall JA, Carney DR, Rosip JC (2006) Individual differences in theacceptance of stereotyping. J Res Pers 40: 1103–1118.
32. Graham JW, Taylor BJ, Olchowski AE, Cumsille PE (2006) Planned missing
data designs in psychological research. Psychol Meth 11: 323–343.33. Smith C, Vaisey S (2009) Charitable giving and moral foundations in a
nationally-representative sample. Unpublished data, University of NorthCarolina.
34. Nosek BA, Banaji MR, Jost JT (2009) The politics of intergroup attitudes. In JostJT, Kay AC, Thorisdottir H, editors. The Social and Psychological Bases of
Ideology and System Justification. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. pp.
480–506.35. Lindner NM, Nosek BA (2009) Alienable speech: Ideological variations in the
application of free-speech principles. Polit Psychol 30: 67–92.36. Smith CT, Ratliff KA, Nosek BA (2012) Rapid assimilation: Automatically
integrating new information with existing beliefs. Soc Cog 30: 199–219.
37. Iyer R, Koleva S, Graham J, Ditto PH, Haidt J (2012) Understanding libertarianmorality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS
ONE 7: e42366.38. Linville PW, Fischer GW, Salovey P (1989) Perceived distributions of the
characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and acomputer simulation. J Pers Soc Psychol 57: 165–188.
39. Ryan CS (1996) Accuracy of Black and White College Students’ In-Group and
Out-Group Stereotypes. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 22: 1114–1127.40. Chambers JR, Melnyk D (2006) Why do I hate thee? Conflict misperceptions
and intergroup mistrust. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32: 1295–1311.
Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 13 December 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 12 | e50092