The layercake model of behavior Timothy Bates amp Gary Lewis British Journal of Psychology 2011 ISSID Maryland I can tell you all the properties of a metal bar Its dimensions its conductivity ductility specific heat density and strength But if you ask me has it been bent I ID: 472735
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "From Left to Right:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
From Left to Right: The layer-cake model of behavior
Timothy Bates & Gary Lewis
(British Journal of Psychology
, 2011)Slide2
ISSID Maryland
“I can tell you all the properties of a metal bar: Its dimensions, its conductivity, ductility, specific heat, density, and strength… But if you ask me has it been bent, I have to know whether you drove over it in a truck or not”
H.J.
Eysenck
, ISSID, Baltimore, ML, 1993Slide3
Personality Systems Model
“
There is as yet nothing like an adequate taxonomy of processes, and creating such a taxonomy should become a priority for personality theorists
”
McCrae
and Costa (
2006, p
. 164
)Slide4
What’s the matter with everyone (else)?
Why doesn’t everybody
v
ote the same?
Surely there’s a right answer?
At least that’s how we often talk:
“How can those people vote for Cameron’s conservatives? It’s stupid!”
“Little Davy Cameroon[
sp
]: Wrong again”Slide5
Individual differences in political orientation
Large
individual differences in political
behaviour remain after controlling status
, gender, and
IQ
Schoon
, Cheng, Gale, Batty, &
Deary
,
2010
Heritable component
N. Martin et al., 1986;
Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005
Causes of difference may
be complex or indirect
Gerber
, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010;
Mondak
, Hibbing,
Canache
,
Seligson
, & Anderson,
2010.Slide6
Background: Personality correlates
Openness most
reliably associated with political
orientation
r
~ around
.3 with liberal political attitudes
Carney
et al., 2008; McCrae, 1996;
Trapnell
, 1994; Van
Hiel
&
Mervielde
,
2004.
Other traits mixed
C: Modest
relationships
of conscientiousness to orientation
Gosling
,
Rentfrow
, & Swann, 2003;
Mondak
&
Halperin
, 2008
)
Other
studies
found
no association (e.g. Alford & Hibbing, 2007)
.
A, E, N: Modest effects
e.g
.
Barbaranelli
,
Caprara
,
Vecchione
, & Fraley,
2007
More
studies
failed
to find associations
Alford
& Hibbing, 2007; Carney et al., 2008;
Mehrabian
, 1996;
Trapnell
,
1994.
Personality (other than O) is
unrelated to political orientation (Alford & Hibbing, 2007; McCrae, 1996)
.Slide7
System Model of Education(Bates 2011)Slide8
What is the middle layer for politics?
Authoritarian
personality?
Adorno
,
Frenkel-Brunswik
, Levinson, & Sanford,
1950
Radicalism and tender-mindedness?
Eysenck
(1954
)
5
Moral
foundations
Haidt
(1997; 2011) Slide9
Haidt (2007; 2009; 2011)Moral Foundations
5 moral facets nested under two moral domains
Group
:
Valuing
of order, authority, in-group loyalty, and aspirations to a pure life
.
Authority;
Purity;
In-group loyalty
Individualizing:
Concerned
for fairness and ensuring that individuals are protected from harm.
Fairness;
HarmSlide10
System Model for Politics(Lewis & Bates, 2011)Slide11
Study 1
447 subjects: UK undergrads
Political orientation measure:
“
How
would you describe your political orientation?
”
“
Very liberal”
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
“Very conservative”.
Widely used, reliable, valid
Carney
et al., 2008; Fuchs &
Klingemann
, 1990;
Jost
, 2006)
NEO PI-R measure of personality
Haidt
MFQSlide12
Three models tested
M1: Personality
moral values
political orientation
Described the data well without
modification
RMSEA
= .07,
χ
2
= 99.17 (
df
= 30,
p
<.001), CFI = .
95
Alternatives give poor fit as
judged by all indices
:
M2:
M
oral
values
Personality
political orientation
RMSEA = .10,
χ
2
= 107.80 (
df
= 31,
p
<.001), CFI = .
91
M3:
Personality
political orientation,
values
RMSEA = .12,
χ
2
= 226.48 (
df
= 32,
p
<.01), CFI = .85Slide13
Study 1 ResultsSlide14
Countervailing facets of N
Three facets of N significant for Individualizing
Countervailing effects:
Anxiety
β
=
.14
Self-consciousness
β
= .17
D
epression
β
=
–
.16
RMSEA
= .07,
χ
2
= 17.53 (
df
= 6,
p
< .01), CFI = .
99Slide15
Study 1 Summary
Individualising:
Linked to Openness
, Neuroticism, and
Agreeableness
Binding
Associated
with O, N, and
E
Binding
and individualizing accounted for significant variance in political orientation
.
Direct relationship for O on politicsSlide16
Does it replicate? (Study 2)
476 subjects
Different Country
: US (not UK)
Different demography
:
Not
student-based
Different
Big Five inventory
(
Rammstedt
& John, 2007),
Different (14–item) measure of politics
:
Internet pornography, sex education in public schools, banning abortion and legalised gay marriage, allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States, higher taxes for the wealthy, aggressive military response to dangerous foreign groups, unemployment payments, gun control laws, offshore drilling, and subsidised healthcare for the poor.
7-point
Likert
scales;
Alpha =.82
Slide17
Study 2 ResultsSlide18
What does this mean?
Personality system model validated
Values mediate
links to
political orientation. Slide19
Moral values combined
Predict
political orientation
Conservative orientation:
Valuing order and hierarchy combined with a low value on the treatment of individuals
Liberal or left-orientation
Low valuing of the group
Strong emphasis on equity and protecting people from harmSlide20
MFQ associations
Individualizing (
fairness and harm).
Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness.
High binding (
authority, loyalty, pure life)
Extraversion,
Conscientiousness, l
ow-OpennessSlide21
Countervailing Personality effects
Neuroticism raises both individualizing and binding.
but individualizing and binding influence political orientation in opposite directions.
Failures to associate neuroticism with political orientation in previous research may be due to these influences effectively cancelling out at the level of politic orientation. Slide22
Facets can countervail too
Anxiety and self-consciousness both increase individualizing
Depression scores relate negatively to this value.
Wise to consider facet-level associations alongside the more common domain-level relations.Slide23
Articulating the left-right distinction
Imagine two individuals with moderate left-of-centre orientations.
One may value group solidarity strongly, but have little concern for individual liberties.
The other may value both the individual and the group to an equal but moderate extent.
Self-report an identical orientation
Disagree strongly over particular policies:
F
or instance, immigration and free trade
High group loyalty
favour trade barriers and protection
Civil liberties: treatment of individuals divides opinion among the left.Slide24
In Summary
Personality system model is a useful framework for understanding the complex relationship between personality and political orientation.
Personality significantly shapes political orientation
Largely indirectly, via an intermediary layer of characteristic adaptations.
Countervailing effects common and important