Hibbing et al. have done a masterful job reviewing research in support of their compelling claim that conservatives have a negativity bias. Although they give us excellent insights into political conservatism, they leave us questioning the comparable underpinnings of political liberalism. They note that liberals do not have a positivity bias; is liberalism, then, simply the absence of a negativity bias? Our work suggests otherwise and relies on a fundamental motivational distinction to understand political ideology. In linking this motivational distinction to morality and moral regulation in particular, we provide a perspective that helps account for political positions across the political spectrum.
Psychologists distinguish between two fundamental motivations – approach and avoidance. The approach system has a positive end-state and is based in behavioral activation, whereas the avoidance system has a negative end-state and is based in behavioral inhibition. When applied to the moral domain, approach and avoidance motivation are reflected in two distinct systems of moral regulation (Janoff-Bulman et al. Reference Janoff-Bulman2009): a prescriptive system focused on positive outcomes and behavioral activation (“shoulds”), and a proscriptive system focused on negative outcomes and behavioral inhibition (“should nots”). Most broadly, proscriptive morality involves not harming, or protecting others from threat or danger; in contrast, prescriptive morality involves helping, or providing for others' well-being. Research has shown that proscriptive morality is strict, mandatory, and condemnatory, whereas prescriptive morality is less strict, more discretionary, and commendatory (Janoff-Bulman et al. Reference Janoff-Bulman2009).
In past work we have linked these two moral regulatory systems and their underlying approach-avoidance motivations to political ideology. More specifically, political conservatism is rooted in avoidance-based proscriptive moral regulation, and political liberalism is rooted in approach-based prescriptive moral regulation (Janoff-Bulman Reference Janoff-Bulman2009; Janoff-Bulman et al. 2008). Hibbing et al.'s conclusion that conservatives have a negativity bias is entirely consistent with our perspective. Based on their analysis, liberals nevertheless remain theoretically untethered, other than being associated with an absence of any negativity bias. It is tempting to conclude that political liberalism results from this absence, yet work on motivation and morality would suggest otherwise. More specifically, a failure to avoid a negative stimulus is not the same as approaching a positive one – these are distinct motivations. Similarly, and perhaps less obviously, not harming another (proscriptive morality) is not the same as helping another (prescriptive morality). Motivationally, proscriptive morality requires restraint of an existing temptation, whereas prescriptive morality requires overcoming inertia and establishing a positive motivation. Political liberalism and conservatism are not simply opposite sides of the same coin, but likely reflect distinct motivational and moral regulatory systems.
Morality can be directed at the self, another person, or the group writ large; group-based morality is most pertinent to politics. We maintain that there are two group-based moralities, one prescriptive and liberal and the other proscriptive and conservative (Janoff-Bulman & Carnes 2013; also see Janoff-Bulman Reference Janoff-Bulman2009). More specifically, the conservative group-based morality focuses on Social Order in the interest of protecting the group from harm; included here are Haidt's binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity that are endorsed by conservatives (Graham et al. 2009). The liberal group-based morality emphasizes Social Justice in the interest of providing for the well-being of the group; this group-based morality focuses on equality-oriented macrojustice concerns (see Brickman et al. 1981).
These group-based moralities bind societies in very different ways for very different purposes, reflecting the different underlying motivations of each perspective. By emphasizing conformity, strict norm adherence and obedience to authority, conservatives' Social Order morality maximizes the possibility for social coordination in response to both internal and external group threats. Cross-cultural work demonstrates that tight societies encounter more ecological and historical threats which “increase the need for strong norms and punishment of deviant behavior in the service of social coordination for survival” (Gelfand et al. 2011, p. 1101). In contrast, by emphasizing equality, interdependence and communal responsibility, liberals' Social Justice morality strives to maximize social cooperation to achieve common goals for mutual well-being. Indeed, nations with greater economic equality possess a higher quality of life for all citizens, not just the poorest, on nearly every index of well-being (e.g., Wilkinson & Pickett 2009).
These different motivations influence preferred domains of regulation and autonomy concerning social and economic issues. A morality based in Social Justice focuses on economic issues and social resources as the appropriate domains of regulation, for here lie the means to provide for the group's welfare. Universal health care and anti-poverty programs are clearly liberal causes. The environment is embraced as a public good on the left and is therefore regarded as a domain for regulation by liberals. A morality based in Social Order emphasizes protection and vigilance, and focuses on restrictiveness in the domain of social issues, where norm adherence and deviance can be observed. Not surprisingly, abortion and gay marriage are primary targets of regulation from the right.
Capital punishment is lauded by conservatives for its posited deterrence (i.e., protective) value, and demonized on the left for its inequitable distribution. Despite their focus on threat, conservatives sometimes ignore a relatively abstract danger such as climate change – particularly one that would require a response involving economic regulation. Here we need to recognize that in addition to domains of regulation, conservatives and liberals have distinct domains of individual autonomy, where the government should not tread; in each case it is the other side's domain of regulation. There are a few economic arenas in which conservatives call for more government involvement (e.g., greater spending), but not surprisingly they clearly concern protection and do not directly interfere with the free market, as in budgets for police and national defense.
Conservatives endorse Social Order and not Social Justice, whereas liberals display the opposite pattern. Interestingly, libertarians are critical of both group-based moralities and espouse individual autonomy in social and economic domains; and communitarians champion both Social Order and Social Justice and prefer regulation in both domains. Differences in moral regulation can help us understand ideology and positions across the political spectrum.
Hibbing et al. have done a masterful job reviewing research in support of their compelling claim that conservatives have a negativity bias. Although they give us excellent insights into political conservatism, they leave us questioning the comparable underpinnings of political liberalism. They note that liberals do not have a positivity bias; is liberalism, then, simply the absence of a negativity bias? Our work suggests otherwise and relies on a fundamental motivational distinction to understand political ideology. In linking this motivational distinction to morality and moral regulation in particular, we provide a perspective that helps account for political positions across the political spectrum.
Psychologists distinguish between two fundamental motivations – approach and avoidance. The approach system has a positive end-state and is based in behavioral activation, whereas the avoidance system has a negative end-state and is based in behavioral inhibition. When applied to the moral domain, approach and avoidance motivation are reflected in two distinct systems of moral regulation (Janoff-Bulman et al. Reference Janoff-Bulman2009): a prescriptive system focused on positive outcomes and behavioral activation (“shoulds”), and a proscriptive system focused on negative outcomes and behavioral inhibition (“should nots”). Most broadly, proscriptive morality involves not harming, or protecting others from threat or danger; in contrast, prescriptive morality involves helping, or providing for others' well-being. Research has shown that proscriptive morality is strict, mandatory, and condemnatory, whereas prescriptive morality is less strict, more discretionary, and commendatory (Janoff-Bulman et al. Reference Janoff-Bulman2009).
In past work we have linked these two moral regulatory systems and their underlying approach-avoidance motivations to political ideology. More specifically, political conservatism is rooted in avoidance-based proscriptive moral regulation, and political liberalism is rooted in approach-based prescriptive moral regulation (Janoff-Bulman Reference Janoff-Bulman2009; Janoff-Bulman et al. 2008). Hibbing et al.'s conclusion that conservatives have a negativity bias is entirely consistent with our perspective. Based on their analysis, liberals nevertheless remain theoretically untethered, other than being associated with an absence of any negativity bias. It is tempting to conclude that political liberalism results from this absence, yet work on motivation and morality would suggest otherwise. More specifically, a failure to avoid a negative stimulus is not the same as approaching a positive one – these are distinct motivations. Similarly, and perhaps less obviously, not harming another (proscriptive morality) is not the same as helping another (prescriptive morality). Motivationally, proscriptive morality requires restraint of an existing temptation, whereas prescriptive morality requires overcoming inertia and establishing a positive motivation. Political liberalism and conservatism are not simply opposite sides of the same coin, but likely reflect distinct motivational and moral regulatory systems.
Morality can be directed at the self, another person, or the group writ large; group-based morality is most pertinent to politics. We maintain that there are two group-based moralities, one prescriptive and liberal and the other proscriptive and conservative (Janoff-Bulman & Carnes 2013; also see Janoff-Bulman Reference Janoff-Bulman2009). More specifically, the conservative group-based morality focuses on Social Order in the interest of protecting the group from harm; included here are Haidt's binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity that are endorsed by conservatives (Graham et al. 2009). The liberal group-based morality emphasizes Social Justice in the interest of providing for the well-being of the group; this group-based morality focuses on equality-oriented macrojustice concerns (see Brickman et al. 1981).
These group-based moralities bind societies in very different ways for very different purposes, reflecting the different underlying motivations of each perspective. By emphasizing conformity, strict norm adherence and obedience to authority, conservatives' Social Order morality maximizes the possibility for social coordination in response to both internal and external group threats. Cross-cultural work demonstrates that tight societies encounter more ecological and historical threats which “increase the need for strong norms and punishment of deviant behavior in the service of social coordination for survival” (Gelfand et al. 2011, p. 1101). In contrast, by emphasizing equality, interdependence and communal responsibility, liberals' Social Justice morality strives to maximize social cooperation to achieve common goals for mutual well-being. Indeed, nations with greater economic equality possess a higher quality of life for all citizens, not just the poorest, on nearly every index of well-being (e.g., Wilkinson & Pickett 2009).
These different motivations influence preferred domains of regulation and autonomy concerning social and economic issues. A morality based in Social Justice focuses on economic issues and social resources as the appropriate domains of regulation, for here lie the means to provide for the group's welfare. Universal health care and anti-poverty programs are clearly liberal causes. The environment is embraced as a public good on the left and is therefore regarded as a domain for regulation by liberals. A morality based in Social Order emphasizes protection and vigilance, and focuses on restrictiveness in the domain of social issues, where norm adherence and deviance can be observed. Not surprisingly, abortion and gay marriage are primary targets of regulation from the right.
Capital punishment is lauded by conservatives for its posited deterrence (i.e., protective) value, and demonized on the left for its inequitable distribution. Despite their focus on threat, conservatives sometimes ignore a relatively abstract danger such as climate change – particularly one that would require a response involving economic regulation. Here we need to recognize that in addition to domains of regulation, conservatives and liberals have distinct domains of individual autonomy, where the government should not tread; in each case it is the other side's domain of regulation. There are a few economic arenas in which conservatives call for more government involvement (e.g., greater spending), but not surprisingly they clearly concern protection and do not directly interfere with the free market, as in budgets for police and national defense.
Conservatives endorse Social Order and not Social Justice, whereas liberals display the opposite pattern. Interestingly, libertarians are critical of both group-based moralities and espouse individual autonomy in social and economic domains; and communitarians champion both Social Order and Social Justice and prefer regulation in both domains. Differences in moral regulation can help us understand ideology and positions across the political spectrum.