Acceso usuarios
Matthew Feinberg, Elisabeth Wehling, Joanne M. Chung, Laura R. Saslow, Ingrid Melvær Paulin
Individuals’ political stances tend to place them into the conservative “right,” the liberal “left,” or the moderate “middle.” What might explain this pattern of division? Moral Politics Theory (Lakoff, 1996) holds that political attitudes arise from moral worldviews that are conceptually anchored in contrasting family models—the strict-father and nurturant-parent models—while the political middle is morally “biconceptual,” endorsing both models simultaneously. The present research examined these postulations empirically. Studies 1 and 2 tested the conceptual and predictive validity of the theorized models by developing an instrument assessing strict and nurturant parenting beliefs (the Moral Politics Scale [MPT]), and examining its power to predict political stances on issues seemingly unrelated to parenting attitudes (e.g., abortion, taxes, and same-sex marriage). Studies 3a and 3b explored construct validity while testing whether the family models translate into more general moral worldviews, which then serve as a foundation of political attitudes. Studies 4a through 4c tested generalizability, examining the relationship between the family models and political stances across different countries, data-collection modalities, and a representative American sample. Finally, Studies 5–7 explored biconceptualism and the tendency for these individuals to shift political attitudes as a consequence of situational factors, particularly moral framing, such that strict-father frames lead to increased support for conservative stances while nurturant-parent frames lead to increased support for liberal stances. Overall, we found support for each of MPT’s assertions, suggesting that an important aspect of the conceptual and experiential basis of people’s political attitudes lies in the strict-father and nurturant-parent family models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
