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, Ömer Erdoğan, Aaron Hoegn, 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, Ömer Erdoğan, Aaron Hoegn, 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}
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.
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.