政治态度和道德决定,而不是个性,预测2020年美国总统选举

IF 1.6 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Peter K. Jonason, Ömer Erdoğan, Aaron Hoegn, S. Brian Hood
{"title":"政治态度和道德决定,而不是个性,预测2020年美国总统选举","authors":"Peter K. Jonason,&nbsp;Ömer Erdoğan,&nbsp;Aaron Hoegn,&nbsp;S. Brian Hood","doi":"10.1002/ijop.70055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>When personality psychologists examine political behaviour, including voting, they usually focus on a narrow range of variables, thereby undermining the breadth of our knowledge. We asked 280 participants who they voted for (or would have) in the 2020 US presidential election and inquired as to their ‘dark’ personality (i.e., psychopathy, sadism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and ‘light’ (i.e., Kantianism, humanism, and faith in humanity) personality traits, political attitudes (i.e., social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and left-wing authoritarianism), and how many times people chose each of the six moral foundations (i.e., care, fairness, loyalty, purity, liberty, and hierarchy). We found that personality traits (as distal systems) were negligibly important in presidential choice, moral choices (as parallel-yet-related choices) had some utility especially in relation to voting for a third-party candidate, and political attitudes (as proximal predictors) had the broadest and strongest associations. In addition, we found that third-party voters showed stronger concerns for purity than Biden supporters, and greater concerns for fairness than Trump supporters. Our results focus on how dispositional measures can add to standard sociodemographic predictors used by pollsters, politicians, and pundits.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48146,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychology","volume":"60 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political Attitudes and Moral Decisions, Not Personality, Predict 2020 US Presidential Choice\",\"authors\":\"Peter K. Jonason,&nbsp;Ömer Erdoğan,&nbsp;Aaron Hoegn,&nbsp;S. Brian Hood\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ijop.70055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>When personality psychologists examine political behaviour, including voting, they usually focus on a narrow range of variables, thereby undermining the breadth of our knowledge. We asked 280 participants who they voted for (or would have) in the 2020 US presidential election and inquired as to their ‘dark’ personality (i.e., psychopathy, sadism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and ‘light’ (i.e., Kantianism, humanism, and faith in humanity) personality traits, political attitudes (i.e., social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and left-wing authoritarianism), and how many times people chose each of the six moral foundations (i.e., care, fairness, loyalty, purity, liberty, and hierarchy). We found that personality traits (as distal systems) were negligibly important in presidential choice, moral choices (as parallel-yet-related choices) had some utility especially in relation to voting for a third-party candidate, and political attitudes (as proximal predictors) had the broadest and strongest associations. In addition, we found that third-party voters showed stronger concerns for purity than Biden supporters, and greater concerns for fairness than Trump supporters. Our results focus on how dispositional measures can add to standard sociodemographic predictors used by pollsters, politicians, and pundits.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Psychology\",\"volume\":\"60 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijop.70055\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijop.70055","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当人格心理学家研究包括投票在内的政治行为时,他们通常只关注一小部分变量,从而削弱了我们知识的广度。我们询问了280名参与者,他们在2020年美国总统大选中投票给(或将投票给)谁,并询问了他们的“黑暗”人格(即精神病、虐待狂、自恋和马基雅维利主义)和“光明”人格(即康德主义、人文主义和对人性的信仰)特征、政治态度(即社会支配取向、右翼威权主义和左翼威权主义),以及人们选择六种道德基础(即关怀、公平、道德、道德和道德)的次数。忠诚、纯洁、自由和等级)。我们发现,人格特质(作为远端系统)在总统选择中的重要性可以忽略不计,道德选择(作为平行但相关的选择)在为第三方候选人投票方面具有一定的效用,而政治态度(作为近端预测因素)具有最广泛和最强的关联。此外,我们发现第三方选民比拜登的支持者更关注纯度,比特朗普的支持者更关注公平性。我们的研究结果集中在性格测量如何增加民意测验专家、政治家和权威人士使用的标准社会人口预测指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Political Attitudes and Moral Decisions, Not Personality, Predict 2020 US Presidential Choice

When personality psychologists examine political behaviour, including voting, they usually focus on a narrow range of variables, thereby undermining the breadth of our knowledge. We asked 280 participants who they voted for (or would have) in the 2020 US presidential election and inquired as to their ‘dark’ personality (i.e., psychopathy, sadism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and ‘light’ (i.e., Kantianism, humanism, and faith in humanity) personality traits, political attitudes (i.e., social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and left-wing authoritarianism), and how many times people chose each of the six moral foundations (i.e., care, fairness, loyalty, purity, liberty, and hierarchy). We found that personality traits (as distal systems) were negligibly important in presidential choice, moral choices (as parallel-yet-related choices) had some utility especially in relation to voting for a third-party candidate, and political attitudes (as proximal predictors) had the broadest and strongest associations. In addition, we found that third-party voters showed stronger concerns for purity than Biden supporters, and greater concerns for fairness than Trump supporters. Our results focus on how dispositional measures can add to standard sociodemographic predictors used by pollsters, politicians, and pundits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Psychology
International Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Psychology (IJP) is the journal of the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and is published under the auspices of the Union. IJP seeks to support the IUPsyS in fostering the development of international psychological science. It aims to strengthen the dialog within psychology around the world and to facilitate communication among different areas of psychology and among psychologists from different cultural backgrounds. IJP is the outlet for empirical basic and applied studies and for reviews that either (a) incorporate perspectives from different areas or domains within psychology or across different disciplines, (b) test the culture-dependent validity of psychological theories, or (c) integrate literature from different regions in the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信