Researchers uncover different hierarchies of moral concern among liberals and conservatives

New research conducted in Portugal offers insight into the psychological roots of political ideology. The findings suggest that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not just about which values they hold, but how they prioritize them when conflicting demands arise. The study was published in the Journal of Individual Differences.

Psychologists aim to understand why people adopt specific political beliefs. One dominant framework for explaining this is Moral Foundations Theory. This theory proposes that human morality rests on five innate psychological pillars. These pillars are care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. Care involves protecting others from harm. Fairness focuses on justice and reciprocity. Loyalty pertains to devotion to one’s group. Authority relates to respect for hierarchy and tradition. Purity concerns the sanctity of the body and spirit.

Past studies typically measured these foundations by asking people how much they value each one in isolation. This method often indicated that liberals rely mostly on care and fairness. It also suggested that conservatives rely moderately on all five foundations. However, this approach has a blind spot. It does not account for the fact that in real life, moral values often compete with one another. A person might have to choose between adhering to a tradition and ensuring fair treatment for an individual.

Pedro J. C. Costa and Paulo A. S. Moreira, researchers based in Portugal at the University of Lusíada and the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, reasoned that understanding political ideology requires looking at these internal trade-offs. They argued that measuring the relative importance of these values is more revealing than measuring their absolute strength.

“Most approaches to political ideology and political orientation are still primarily rooted in disciplines such as philosophy and the social sciences. However, political ideology does not exist solely as an abstract representation of reality; ultimately, it emerges from human holistic subjective experience,” the researchers told PsyPost.

“We argue that a comprehensive understanding of political phenomena requires integrating expressions of political ideology with their psychobiological underpinnings. Our ongoing research is driven by this goal, and the present study contributes to bridging human subjective experiential phenomena—such as moral intuitions—with one of the most disseminated typologies of political ideology: conservatism and liberalism.”

To explore these dynamics, the researchers recruited 425 adults. The participants were Portuguese citizens. The sample included 301 women and had an average age of approximately 31 years. The researchers used a “snowball sampling” method, where initial participants invited others to join the study.

Participants completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. This tool presents various scenarios and abstract principles. It asks respondents to rate how relevant these are to their moral judgments. The researchers also administered the Twenty Item Values Inventory to measure basic personal values like benevolence and conservation.

The study also included a survey on religious beliefs and behaviors. Participants reported their belief in God and the frequency of their prayers and attendance at religious services. Finally, the researchers measured political orientation. They used a scale assessing social and economic attitudes. They also asked participants to place themselves on a standard left-right political spectrum.

The researchers analyzed the data using two distinct statistical strategies. First, they looked at “ipsatized” scores. This technique adjusts a person’s score on each moral foundation by subtracting their overall average moral score. This process highlights which values a person prioritizes relative to their other values. It effectively filters out a person’s general tendency to agree or disagree with everything.

The results from the ipsatized scores provided a clearer picture than raw scores. When looking at relative priorities, liberals strongly favored the individualizing foundations of care and fairness. In contrast, conservatives prioritized the binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. This suggests that conservatism is driven by placing group-cohesion values above individual-welfare values.

The second analytical strategy involved a cluster analysis. This method grouped participants based on their patterns of moral responses. The analysis identified three distinct profiles.

The first group was labeled “Individuators.” This group comprised about 38 percent of the sample. Individuators scored high on care and fairness but low on loyalty, authority, and purity. Members of this group were the most likely to identify as liberal. They expressed strong support for liberal social and economic policies. They also reported low levels of resistance to societal change.

The second group was labeled “High Moralists.” This group made up roughly 26 percent of the sample. High Moralists scored high on all five moral foundations. They were particularly distinct in their very high endorsement of loyalty, authority, and purity. This group aligned with traditional conservative ideology. They reported higher levels of religious belief and behavior. They also expressed the most resistance to social change.

The third group was labeled “Low Moralists.” This group accounted for about 20 percent of the sample. Individuals in this cluster showed low endorsement of all five moral foundations. Their scores were below average across the board. Despite their lack of strong moral signaling, they tended to identify with the political right.

The existence of the Low Moralist group offers a nuanced view of right-wing ideology. These individuals aligned with the High Moralists on economic conservatism. However, they did not share the High Moralists’ religious zeal or deep attachment to tradition. This points to a divide within the right wing. It suggests there is a “religious right” that is morally motivated and a “secular right” that may be driven by other factors.

The researchers also found a connection between gender and these moral profiles. Men were more likely to be classified as Low Moralists or High Moralists. Women were more likely to be Individuators. This aligns with evolutionary theories suggesting women have historically invested more in care-oriented behaviors.

The researchers note that these findings help clarify the nature of political polarization. It appears that liberals and conservatives do not just disagree on specific issues. They operate with different hierarchies of moral concern. For liberals, the well-being of the individual is paramount. For conservatives, the preservation of the group and its institutions often takes precedence.

The study provides evidence that political views are not one-dimensional. The researchers performed a principal component analysis on the political variables. This statistical test revealed that liberalism and conservatism formed two distinct factors rather than opposite ends of a single line. This supports the idea that people can hold a mix of views that do not fit neatly into a single category.

“Rather than viewing political ideology and political orientation as purely abstract representations of reality or models of society, our findings suggest they are better understood as genuinely bio-psycho-social phenomena,” the researchers said.

But the study, like all research, has some caveats. The study relied entirely on self-reported data. This method depends on the honesty and self-awareness of the participants. The sample was not random, which means it may not perfectly represent the Portuguese population.

The cultural context of Portugal is also significant. The country has a long Catholic history but has become increasingly secular. The interplay between religion and politics in Portugal differs from that in the United States. Future research would benefit from testing these ideas in other cultures.

The researchers also noted the absence of a measure for “liberty.” Some theorists argue that liberty is a sixth moral foundation. It is particularly important for understanding libertarian political views. Future studies should include this measure to get a more complete picture of the moral landscape.

Despite these limitations, the study offers a valuable perspective on the “culture wars.” It suggests that political disagreements often stem from deep-seated differences in how people rank moral values. Understanding these priorities may help explain why certain political messages resonate with specific groups. It highlights that conservatism is not a monolith but includes both highly religious and secular subgroups.

The study, “Unveiling the Moral Priorities of Liberals and Conservatives: Contributions From Variable-Centered and Person-Centered Approaches,” was authored by Pedro J. C. Costa and Paulo A. S. Moreira.