Are Conservatives More Complex Than Liberals?

Psychologist says yes, they're morally more complicated

Liberals are sometimes accused of caricaturing conservatives as "dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity...and uncomfortable with complex modes of thinking," as the NYTimes sums it up.

But that stereotype is all wrong, argues political psychologist Jonathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind. Conservatives are actually far more morally complex than liberals.

Conservatives make moral judgments based on all six of the "moral foundations" identified by Haidt. Those six foundations are care-harm, fairness-cheating, liberty-oppression, loyalty-betrayal, authority-subversion, sanctity-degradation (pictured above).

Liberals, however, respond to events based mainly on just two foundations: care-harm and liberty-oppression (see image). Those moral principles underly liberal support for the social safety net and progressive taxation.

Libertarians have a moral range that's even narrower than liberals, according to Haidt. They base moral decisions primarily on the principle of liberty vs. oppression, valuing freedom over every other moral consideration.

Haidt argues that if we understand these differences, it can help us to bridge the partisan gulf. Not because we can change our own beliefs. But we can become more respectful of others with very different beliefs, rather than just dismissing conservatism - or liberalism - as simple-minded dogmatism.

Via Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind.

Do you think conservatives have a wider set of "moral foundations" than liberals?

[jmann88]

It's pretty clear isn't it? Anyone that supports abortions don't have many morals taking a life of the innocent. Getting people addicted to government funding and not working don't have many morals.

[jmann88]

I'd rather have a libertarian or a conservative run this nation than a socialist liberal.

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

Now, now jmann88, liberals do care about life. You just have to be a murderer or something like that and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure you have a nice long life. They wouldn't dare allow you to get the death penalty.

[DogLady_1]

@jmann88 - I'd rather have a good statesman who loves his country and represents his constituents well than a partisan hack who refuses to do the nation's business with anyone who disagrees with him.

[dances-weebles]

you do realise, don't you, that even if a person is a 'conservative' and they get pregnant and can't remain so for any reason, they get an abortion. it's the natural thing to do.

[jmann88]

@DogLady_1 I agree 100% with ya on that one

[Food4thoughts]

"Political Psychologist".....LMFAO!

[dances-weebles]

exactly

[PNWest]

I am surprised that this got posted given the thoughts of the author.

From an interview with the author:
Q: Does this make political conversations pre-determined, maybe even pointless?
A: Only in certain circumstances. For example, let’s say you’re on the Internet and having an anonymous discussion with someone else using fake names. There’s no relationship, no accountability, and you’re simply arguing over, say, whether what President Obama did was constitutional or not. Then yes, that’s totally pointless.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

Conservatives like to look at the big picture, and we focus on the facts. Liberals are more concerned with individual bumps in the road and react to everything from an extremely emotional standpoint. Analysis: Conservatives usually come out with the right path to prosperity and a good life, liberals almost never do. Hey, I'm just being honest.

[frigginhell]

Actually, I was under the impression that conservatives, like liberals, enjoy people saying things they want to hear. Much like this man is pandering to a specific group in order to sell a book. He has a built in audience so why not say the things they want to hear. Where is his research? How long did he do this study? Who were the members of his focus groups. You'll not find such answers even in the book itself.. The moral foundations theory that you see the chart for is in fact a device of his own creation. It's his theory and he based his book on his opinions. The two groups, conservatives and liberals, comprise a large number of individuals. All with suprisingly complex and differing psychological motivations from the others even within their own group. This man grossly misrepresents opinion for fact and pandering for science to schill a book to a group of uninformed nitwits who like having someone pat them on the back and tell them they're doing the right thing. This man is yet another partisan hack pandering to make a buck. If you're to naive to see it then more is the shame for you.

[PoliticalSpice]

Being honest, or being deluded? Conservatives I've seen on here have two answers to fit every question. Its Obamas fault cut spending, and cut taxes.

[DogLady_1]

@frigginhell - Haidt has had some accolades in his research on morality and happiness, but it always bothers me when psychologists try to be sociologists. Instead, I would enjoy reading something from Diane Vaughan or Eviatar Zerubavel on this subject.

[Food4thoughts]

@frigginhell

I give you a vote up and an "atta boy"!

[hwyangel]

@frigginhell

So much for trying to understand the opposition, lol

[nbakes]

No, not your typical conservative/republican. conservatives in the southern half of the country and rural areas elsewhere as well use racism,intolerance,extremism, Sarah Palin and fox news to determine their stances and view points. seeing as their aren't many republicans outside of the south or rural areas, this "study" is bullshit.

[DrNickels]

I think it would be eye opening for you to go to New York and drive about 3 hours west of NYC and you'd be surprised how few liberals exist. Liberals are usually confined to urban areas in states while conservatives are more spread out in rural areas. Probably has something to do with years of having to fend for oneself and not depend on the government.

[mtkopf]

@DrNickels or it might have to do with the fact that those in the city actually SEE poverty and its effects on people up close.

[DrNickels]

@mtkopf
Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. You've not spent much time in rural America then. That's real poverty. In the country there are no buses, no public transportation. The closest store isn't just down the block or the closest hospital isn't just a couple streets away. Sometimes it's over 20 miles. Your ignorance is overwhelming.

The majority of New York State is filled with poor rural areas who suffer under the high tax policies that the crazies in NYC dream up. I'm guessing if it was put to a vote New York State would split into western New York and eastern New York.

[dances-weebles]

@DrNickels yeah... i've been all over that area. they define 'conservative' the same as everyone else defines 'redneck'. some people even call them 'po white trailer trash'

[dances-weebles]

@DrNickels um... the folks in nyc don't 'dream up taxes' for the rest of the state.

[WMCOL]

>>>Do you think conservatives have a wider set of "moral foundations" than liberals?<<<
Don't know about that moral claim but do know conservatives have a wider set of hypocrisy foundations.

After all these same conservatives are the ones who declared themselves "the moral party" and "the family values party" and "party sworn to restore honor and dignity to public office" and then straightway showed themselves to be anything but, and to this very day.

[WMCOL]

Another thing this Psychologist overlooks is the fact that there can be no freedom of religion, nor free moral exercising, without a nation imbued with freedom and liberty through the secular rule-of-law.

[TeresaJ]

"After all these same conservatives are the ones who declared themselves "the moral party" and "the family values party" and "party sworn to restore honor and dignity to public office" and then straightway showed themselves to be anything but, and to this very day"

How so?

"there can be no freedom of religion, nor free moral exercising, without a nation imbued with freedom and liberty through the secular rule-of-law."

The forefathers disagreed with you:

"[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society.... To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these ... religious institutions are eminently useful and important....[T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion." -Oliver Ellsworth (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 1802)

"We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism." -Benjamin Rush (Signer of the Declaration of Independence)

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure,[and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -Charles Carroll of Carrollton (Signer of the Declaration of Independence)

[WMCOL]

@TeresaJ
The forefathers exactly agreed with me.

We are a secular rule-of-law nation. Every behavior in our nation is subject to the rule-of-law, including religion. Every behavior you call moral or immoral when in dispute must have its final or ultimate resolution in the secular rule-of-law. Abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, voting, religion, property, criminal behavior, etc., etc., will if not settled in lower Courts find its conclusive resolution in our system of secular law at the High Court of the nation or through Amending the Constitution.

Without the protection of the law religion would not be free.

I'm not "decrying the Christian religion", I am a Christian. I am decrying the co-mingling or merging of religion with the state, whatever religion it may be. I beleive in giving to the state that which is the states and to God that which is his. Don't mix my religon with the state where it is then under the dictates of the state.

[Jeff_Woehrle]

More complex, more successful, better looking, smarter...the list is substantial.

[Jeff_Woehrle]

@mtkopf It appears that we debate better as well.

[Jeff_Woehrle]

@Keyjo Let's add better eyesight as well.

[Keyjo]

@Jeff_Woehrle
If you consider tunnel vision as "better eyesight."

[TheJimmy]

Not complex at all really. To simplify:

Conservatives = Hunters

Liberals = Gatherers

[DogLady_1]

Hunters and Gatherers... kinda need both now don't we? Humans are omnivores... even American humans...

[TheJimmy]

@DogLady_1
Anthropology can explain the ideological differences between Right and Left much better than psychology ever will.

[Rocker]

@DogLady_1 - I love it when science attempts to interpret the brain when it's understood in the medical that they don't understand all it's functions and workings. Kinda like explaining how a bumblebee can fly when it's aerodynamically an improbability.

[DogLady_1]

@TheJimmy - Anthropology? Sociology would explain it even better since that is the science of human behavior in social groups. I'm not sure that there are actual anatomical/physical/genetic attributes that cause one to become liberal or conservative... If you know of any, I'd be interested in looking at them...

[hwyangel]

"Loyalty-betrayal" as in loyalty to family and the constitution.

"Authority-subversion " as in conservatives believe in helping the poor but not to the extent that we should become dependant on the government. Helping the poor should be a personal decision, a gift of your personal money, time and effort rather than something forced on you through government policies.

"Sanctity-degradation "
Is the idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants. To promote modesty, integrity, holiness, and wholesomeness

[stepped_in_it]

I just find it funny/interesting how this chart finds liberals so "equal" across the board and Conservatives/Libertarians are not. No one is that "equal"! Could the one who did the "study" and chart be a little biases in their work? More fodder for the compost heap.

[dances-weebles]

this isn't possible as 'morals values' aren't anything which any group can hold. the things which this 'psychologist' mentioned are nothing more than common sense issues and even at best he's doing exactly the same thing that he's accusing 'liberals' of doing... stereotyping.

what the hell is a 'political psychologist', anyway?

[Fishbone345]

I think this type of study further separates us as Americans. Anytime you place people in categories, it complicates communication and understanding. The problems we see in Washington DC are the result.
I guess I care about Liberties and not much else, thank you for informing me of my shallowness.

[truthsayer]

@Fishbone345 If people could see the root of all our problems is the oppression of liberty all of our other issue's would go away. Yes its very shallow of you to be concerned with the freedoms and rights of others to live there life as they see fit instead of advocating conformity to government lies and basing there lives on peer pressure. Shame on you. However will a free nation survive if everybody has the freedom of choice on how to live there life's.

[DARSB]

Pretty high order abstraction. How would an experiment to test this hypothesis look? And what, exactly, is a "political psychologist?"

[PoliticalSpice]

Or perhaps the writer of that book is wrong. I think the whole think is more complex. You have a lot of simplistic, ridgid conservatives on here based on why I read, but I've also known consrvatives who are complex people with a brain. I think this writer, for all the cplexity of the theory he weaves is actually really simplistic....

[S-N-A-F-U]

It's not all that complicated folks -- from one that knows humankind best.....
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as fools walk along the road,
they lack sense
and show everyone how stupid they are."

Ecclesiastes 10:2-3

[DogLady_1]

why don't you look into the cultural/biblical significance of "right" and "left"... you are assuming that Solomon had the same meaning of those words that you do. This is NOT a political scripture, and I take real issue with people who hand-pick the Word of God to promote their own agendas... The Bible is God's agenda... and he loves fools as much as he loves wise people... in fact, His Son died for everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

[Real4WheelDrv]

@DogLady_1 Except for those who don't believe in him

[S-N-A-F-U]

@DogLady_1

Yes, the Bible is God's agenda -- FOR US......

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness " 2 Tim. 3:16

FYI, Biblically, the 'left' has had unsavory connotations regarding 'wrong-headedness' from the very beginning. And there is no scripture reflecting the opposite.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right,‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.“Then he will say to those on his left,‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Mat. 25:31-34;41

Yes, Jesus died for all, that we may too have redemtion and salvation -- "for everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." John 3:16,17 (also, Rom. 6:17,18,22,23)

[S-N-A-F-U]

@Real4WheelDrv

God made man and the angles creatures of choice. You can choose what you want to believe. There was a time when most inhabitants believed the world was flat - ancient mariners believed that if they ventured to far out to sea they would fall of the edge of the world, this primitive belief didn't make it so, anymore than what some believe today about God, brought about by sheer ignorance of both him and his written word -- "Among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ... might not shine through." 2 Cor, 4:4,

However, there are rewards for those adhering to God's message for salvation from the evil that prevades the earth under Satan's influence of wickedness, aberrant behavior and wars brought about by -- his misleading the entire earth Rev. 20:9; 1 John 5:19

Once again, you can believe what you will, but in the not to distant future, you will see things unfold that will give you pause, such as increased natural disasters, such as earthquakes, sever weather and an increase in societal dysfunction and getting worse by the year -- all Prophised for the coming end times....

http://endtimesrevelations.wordpress.com/tag/...

[Real4WheelDrv]

@S-N-A-F-U Hey I'm agnostic, I'm pro-religion in ALMOST any debate politix has had on the topic because I feel that if people need something external to themselves to give them strength and hope, let them have it, BUT I will still point out inconsistencies from time to time. One interesting topic that came up a while ago in a conversation during a bus ride was Romans 1:20... depending on how you interpret that...all native americans etc. wound up in hell, because even though god is in nature, and they worshipped nature spirits, it would still be seen as paganism.

[Tralee]

Sure, conservatives are more complex, liberals are stuck in the childish state of I/Me and some very child like idea of "fairness". Sort of like Tim's brother got 6 toys for Christmas and $30.00, with his money he bought 4 other toys and saved $10 for later. Tim also got the 6 toys and $30. He spent his $30, totally, on one game. HIS (the liberal way) idea of fairness was for brother to give half his toys he bought to Tim and $5.00, all in the idea of "fairness". After all poor Tim only got a total of 7 toys while brother got TEN toys and $10! It's just not fair, brother OWES Tim because he has more. That, boys and girls, explains the liberal mindset. Equal opportunity MUST mean equal outcome to liberals. To conservatives, equal opportunity means just that, we all start from square one, what personal decisions you make after that are yours and yours alone.

[Russell797]

My answer to the 2 questions asked is maybe. Whatever complexity is being referred to here derives from a deep wiring of the brain. The liberal or conservative inclinations we have are not consciously arrived at most of the time. They come from our gut. One is not better or superior than the other, one is not more complex than the other....they are just different and represent a natural variability within the species which has in the past bettered the survival rate of our ancestors. I no more chose to be a liberal than I did being a heterosexual.

[Chromalord]

Of course conservative are morally more complicated. They have to wrestle with themselves living a hypocritical existence.

[Politicskid]

Look who's talking.

Supporting abortion and being against the death penalty is insanely hypocritical. You want the murderers to live while allowing innocent children to be killed lawfully?

[Chromalord]

@Politicskid What innocent children? Never realized the death penalty was actually a conservative issue. My comment wasn't aimed at vapid wedge issues the GOP introduces every election time.

[Knightkore]

Yes...

[Roco]

When you have someone so extreme left or right making a point strictly toward their belief only makes those of that nature more likely think they are always right and knows what's best. They only complexity of any party is money. How much they are getting. Their morals are always up for sale to the highest bidder. Until that part of the political equal gets closer to zero, there will always be a great divide between each.

[DerivePI]

Not necessarily. All three groups may (or may not) feel morally obligated to care for the disadvantaged. The desired government response however differs. A liberal sees a hungry man and wants government to feed him. A conservative sees a hungry man and feeds him. A libertarian sees a hungry man and trades him food for his labor.

Where liberals see government as a means to utopia, conservatives and libertarians recognize that government is a necessary evil and should be limited.

[Zazziness]

"A conservative sees a hungry man and feeds him."
Not really. A conservative sees a hungry man, follows him through the grocery store making judgments about what he uses his food stamps for, then says he shouldn't have had the children he had and if they starve, well, that's not their problem. As for libertarians? The most extreme of them have merely decided to live by the law of the jungle : every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. Nothing all that admirable about that.

[Russell797]

The conservatives and libertarians I know would just as soon blame the impoverished for their plight in a blanket assumption, rather than just acknowledge the diversity of people and their individual circumstances. They actually speak of takers of help with great disrespect and animosity. The reality is we are not all equal, in intellect, emotionally, physically or otherwise in ability to reach the level of personal success conservatives and libertarians demand of everyone else.

[Drake_Burrwood]

@Zazziness
I'm libertarian and don't have problem with the devil taking the hindmost. Since I am suffering from arthritis it's going to be me. Since I'm CCW he'll have to work a lot harder to take me. Since I'm over fifty my loss will weigh less then those with more life to lose.

[Zazziness]

@Drake_Burrwood I have RA, too, but am still a useful and productive member of society. If you'd like to go float out on an iceberg because you feel you are valueless and we should live like wolves, OK. Personally, I prefer we live like what we are: social animals meant to live in a group where the strengths of each help the weaknesses of others.

[Drake_Burrwood]

@Zazziness

[Zazziness]

Well, I've noticed extreme rightwingers are extraordinarily good at believing two conflicting ideas are equally true. I always chalked that up to lack of introspection but if you want to call that "morally complex," OK.

[TeresaJ]

What two ideas?

[Zazziness]

@TeresaJ
How about "I don't want any of my taxes to go to welfare" but at the same time believing "I don't want any children to starve."
Or "I don't want birth control given away or science-based sex education taught in school" at the same time believing "I'd do anything to stop those welfare mothers from having children they can't support."
Or "I support our troops" at the same time believing "We can't really fund the VA like it was for VIPs or something."
Or "Of course I want to leave a good place for my children to live" at the same time believing "We don't need the EPA. Big business will regulate themselves because they're just so darned nice."

I could go on.

[TeresaJ]

@Zazziness

Hmmm maybe the conservitive mind is more complex, to think of ideas besides government to accomplish these things.:)

Interestingly enough, if every person out there practiced what the pastors preached, there would be no issue with any of these. Thus the reason the forefathers put such a huge emphasis on morality as being the foundational backbone of our government.

[Zazziness]

@TeresaJ If every person out there practiced what the pastors preached, we would not be a free nation but a Christian theocracy and most people would just be at home hoping the Inquisition was coming for their neighbor, not for them.

[twinertia]

@TeresaJ Those "pastors" are ten (10) times more wicked and immoral than the sheeple they "minister" to. Your "if" has always been a pipe dream, as well.