Libertarian Psychology

One line of research I am involved in concerns understanding and appreciating libertarian morality, and it's psychological roots. This page contains information related to a paper written with co-authors Spassena Koleva, Jesse Graham, Pete Ditto, and Jon Haidt. The paper has been published in PLOS One and can be read in its entirety here.

Here is a video that describes this paper's findings for those who want a more digestible overview.

The abstract:

Libertarians are an increasingly prominent ideological group in U.S. politics, yet they have been largely unstudied. Across 16 measures in a large web-based sample that included 11,994 self-identified libertarians, we sought to understand the moral and psychological characteristics of self-described libertarians. Based on an intuitionist view of moral judgment, we focused on the underlying affective and cognitive dispositions that accompany this unique worldview. Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of personality differences in the organization of political attitudes.

More broadly, the paper concerns the role that psychological dispositions and personality traits play in the organization of political attitudes. We replicate a great deal of previous research in this area, and by extending this work to an understudied population (libertarians), we hope to lend context to previously reported differences found between liberals and conservatives, many of which are reported in isolation. Ideology is a fundamental dimension on which individuals differ. We feel that the ability to view the entire matrix of relationships between ideological groups in such a large sample allows us to take a perspective that illuminates the important connections that exist between morality, ideology, and personality traits.

The purpose of the online supplement is to allow us to post information related to the paper. Within the paper itself, there were several convergent findings referred to that were not included due to space reasons. These findings are detailed below:

Correlation/Sample Overlap Table - This table shows the correlation and sample overlap between participants who took any given 2 measures. It is also available in SPSS output and PDF formats.
Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative Attitudes of Libertarians - This analysis shows that libertarians who visit our website do report socially liberal and fiscally conservative, indicating that they understand the common meaning of the term libertarian.
Sacredness Scale Results - This measure is an alternative way to measure the 5 foundations from Moral Foundations Theory, and libertarians show a convergent pattern by this measure.
Moral Identity Scale Results - This measure is very similar to the modified Good-Self scale used in the paper and the results converge.
Cluster Analysis Dendogram - This dendogram indicates that a 3 cluster solution, which empirically showed that libertarians were a distinct cluster, was an appropriate fit to the data.
Robustness Tables - These 2 tables show that whether we conduct analyses overall, by gender, or by participant source, differences between libertarians and other groups remains similar.
Do libertarians resemble extreme liberals/conservatives? - One hypothesis might be that libertarian thought is 'extreme' and therefore libertarians might resemble extreme liberals/conservatives. This hypothesis was not supported in our data.
Life Satisfaction Correlates - This finding was omitted for space considerations and perhaps belongs in a separate paper, but in our data, libertarians report slightly lower levels of life satisfaction and their life satisfaction is less related to statements endorsing horizontal collectivism (e.g. "I feel good when I cooperate with others").

The above items are specific findings that we did not include in the paper for space reasons and mentioned in the paper. Below are blog posts that are not referenced in the paper, but which also illuminate libertarian morality. We hope to continually add to these posts going forward, such that this page can supplement the original paper by providing a space where more recent, convergent research, can be shared.

Comments

comments

Old Comments (17) Trackbacks (10)

wreaver
November 21st, 2010 - 14:22

Hello Ravi,

I read the paper you co-authored: “Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology”….

If your data was available, I’d try investigating this myself, but since it isn’t I will simply suggest an alternate hypothesis to Liberty being another moral foundation. That libertarian’s desire for Liberty is really about a desire to prevent a concept of harm that comes about through an attempt to remove what seems to them to be logical inconsistencies and absurdities from their moral framework.

First, I will say that I am someone who self-identifies as a “libertarian” and that some (although not most) of the people I socialize with also self-identify as “libertarian”. Which doesn’t make what I am about to say necessarily correct of course and you can weight my claims according to whatever potential unrepresentativeness or potential cognitive biases you feel I have, however as someone who has a libertarian mode of moral cognition, I think you are missing an important point.

I will speak in my own voice, rather than speaking for all people who self-identify as “libertarian”, however I do believe that my moral “calculations” are similar to other people I know who self-identify as “libertarian” and also suspect that my moral “calculations” are representative of people who self-identify as “libertarian” in general. Again, my opinion, so weigh it accordingly.

When I talk about Liberty, it has a lot to do with preventing harm (either done to myself or sometimes done to others). To keep this comment short I will explain it by simply saying, my concept of what is harmful is anything that violates individual liberty, and no more.

For me, the reason what is harmful is no more than a violation of individual liberty is because anything more seems to me to be logically inconsistent or leads to what seems to me to be absurd results, given an acceptance of the “moral goal” that what I want for my own body absolute, and a violation of this is an act of harm. This “moral goal” is sometimes also worded as “the absolute sovereignty of the individual” or “self-ownership”. Although I had this “moral goal” before I ever heard it described in any of these ways, and before I ever heard the label “libertarian”. Either way though, this “moral goal” is the nucleus of how I define harm.

Fairness comes into play also for me, but anything beyond a certain kind of fairness of action is either logically inconsistent or violates my “moral goal”. Specifically, for me fairness means that if an action is wrong for me to do to another, then that same action is wrong for others to do to me, and no more. And deciding whether an action is wrong to do goes back to my concept of harm. (This concept of fairness really needs more explanation, because there is some ambiguity in the way it is worded. But I think doing so would make this comment too large, so I’ll leave it at that.)

For me, anything that does not logically follow from a violation of this concept of harm or this concept fairness is not immoral.
Ravi
November 23rd, 2010 - 16:01

Thanks again for the comments and insights into libertarian thinking. Harm is an unfortunately vague word and we are seeking to change it. I get your point about thinking about liberty violations as being a type of harm. But I do believe there is a clearer distinction to be made between caring about other people’s happiness and caring about their autonomy. It is that distinction which we are trying to capture in proposing that liberty may be a different concern from harm.
A. G. Phillbin
November 26th, 2010 - 20:46

Do you plan to widen your investigation to include members of political trends not included in this study? I would be interested to know where far leftists (both communists and anarchists) and fascists would score on these tests.
Ravi
December 2nd, 2010 - 10:19

I’ll look into our data and see if that’s possible. We let people self-identify as libertarian as it’s a big enough group, but we have some data on whom is sympathetic to these other groups that might be interesting.
AscottW
December 7th, 2010 - 17:17

Very well done! I usually do not read things that long on a computer screen. But, you had me riveted! I am a self-described Libertarian myself and I found your conclusions pretty much spot on. I think your assertion that “Liberty” has become moral in and of itself with Libertarians is a very refreshing idea and one that I would agree most Libertarians hold.

What would your opinion be on the shelf-life of the terms “Liberal”, “Conservative”, and “Libertarian”?

Do you consider “Libertarianism” to be the most timeless ideological label given the vast shift in the use of the terms “Conservative” and “Liberal” in the American political scene over time? To explain a little better: Everyone from media to bloggers (at least until blogging became mainstream) used the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” much different than they are used today. In recent years, Liberals and Conservatives have moved closer together on the linear political spectrum (whether they moved left or right on that spectrum is a whole other matter.) But, is there evidence to suggest that “Libertarians” have been most ‘consistent’?
Ravi
December 7th, 2010 - 18:11

Thanks for the comment and it’s nice to know that self-described libertarians feel that they are portrayed accurately. You’re probably right that libertarianism may have a more static definition than liberal or conservative. The libertarian preference for rationality almost guarantees that libertarian philosophies will remain more consistent than philosophies that are based somewhat on emotional reactivity.
LibertarianJRT
December 13th, 2010 - 23:07

I downloaded your study and have reviewed it quickly. I intend to review in greater detail once time is available to me. I want you and your peers to know I appreciate your work and I find it valuable. I believe now because of your research that the Libertarian Party will always be in the minority. Why? Because as your findings suggest, liberals and conservatives are just not wired to be libertarian. I would flatter myself with the notion that we who identify with your research are in some way more advanced but I am too eqalitarian to believe that is the case. Fact is that we libertarians are just different, not necessarily better.

The work concerning repulsion is of particular interest. The concept that self identified conservatives are physically ill at the notion of certain concepts such as Homosexuality is very insightful. I discussed this with my “Christian Conservative” friends and found this to be universally true.

How could we ever hope to rationally change someone who is apparently hardwired to be ill at the idea of something as inconsequential as gay sex? The same is true for Liberals who place a higher value on eqaulity then equity. How could one possibly rationalize with someone who is predisposed to beleaving “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”?

Thank you for your work.
Ravi
December 15th, 2010 - 23:35

Thanks for your input!

As to your question, the way to change someone who has an emotional reaction is not a rational process. For example, if you want people to be less disgusted by something, then you can’t just tell them to be less disgusted…but you can get them accustomed to whatever stimulus is causing that reaction. There is research that people who have contact with homosexuals lose their homophobia.

I’m not sure how you’d get rid of the liberal empathic/guilt response. I’m a liberal myself, so I don’t know if I’d consider that a desirable goal….but it’s an inderesting intellectual exercise to think about.

Thanks again for the comments.
libertarianjane
March 6th, 2011 - 20:26

One way to prevent the empathic liberal response from developing is to isolate and alienate people at a young age. Of course, that’s often impractical and can have negative collaeral effects. But I don’t think we need to completely block the emotion of empathy in order to encourage “liberals” to reason more rationally. Maybe public school curricula could place more emphasis on logical/cognitive exercises like the ones found on the LSAT — make people more accustomed to exercising their logic muscles in order to solve problems. Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying people who self-identify as liberal are necessarily logically inept…they’re just logically disinclined. (As are many conservatives, btw). So maybe we could foster habits that would spur a different inclination. Also, I think the growth of the internet is a promising empathy retardant. [proceeds to link a million hand-wringing nyt articles about "cyberbullying"]

while some may read this post as an attempt at Swift-style parody, it isn’t.
Ravi
March 12th, 2011 - 07:15

interesting idea, Jane. I have to admit that I personally prefer a moral system based on irrational humanism along the lines of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html. But I realize that’s just my perspective and appreciate you sharing yours.
Daniel G. (libertarian)
April 29th, 2011 - 14:09

This is an interesting study. You seem spot on with the idea that libertarians value liberty as an end in itself. Also, the data showing that libertarians tend to be liberal on cultural issues is consistent with my anecdotal experiences.

Is there any data indicating that libertarians have a greater tolerance for uncertainty? From my experiences, for example, a libertarian is more apt to call for the abolition of food safety laws, believing that consumers will select higher quality foods over lower quality foods, but the libertarian will not know in advance exactly what standards farmers, grocers or restaurant owners will hold themselves to. This leads me to believe that libertarians might be more willing to accept uncertainty than liberals or conservatives.

Anyway, this study seems to be quite well done. It is accurate and fair in it’s treatment of libertarians.
Ravi
April 29th, 2011 - 19:46

In our data set, libertarians do indeed show a relatively low need for closure (which equals a high tolerance for uncertainty), comparable to liberals. One might say though, that the conservative tendency to avoid uncertainty is one reason why conservatives generally score higher on measures of life satisfaction compared to liberals and conservatives (in our data, and in other datasets).
Michael Anschauer
June 1st, 2011 - 07:17

Like the labels “conservative” and “liberal”, I believe the label “libertarian” is too vague to have much value in scholarly inquiry. Better to look to INTERESTS, real and perceived, as well as the SOCIAL FABRIC in which an individual is embedded, and the LEADERSHIP that the individual (and his social circle) has developed the habit of following– in order to have a useful model for understanding and predicting behavior.
Matthew
June 6th, 2011 - 10:55

I would like to recommend the book “Healing Our World” by Mary Ruwart to anyone who wishes to learn more about why libertarians believe their solutions are those best suited to helping the world. The previous edition is even available for free online.
Benson Bear
October 5th, 2011 - 21:05

Your framing of the issue seems rather flawed. How can you say “libertarians showed a stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle”? What does it mean, given that liberty is an essentially contested concept? I am a non-libertarian and I think I endorse it more strongly than they do. I think, for example, many people would have very little liberty in a so-called “libertarian” society, so I endorse a society to reign in the powerful and greedy, so as to promote more and more liberty (for all).
Ravi
October 6th, 2011 - 02:07

Liberty is indeed a contested concept, but I would argue that some forms of liberty (what some call positive liberty), are really based in empathy, and so while they technically are forms of liberty, they could also be classified as altruism.
JasonB
November 6th, 2011 - 19:17

Hi Ravi,

Very interesting paper! If I may offer a suggestion for future investigations into “libertarian psychology”…

First, “libertarianism” is not a monolithic philosophy, (though I suppose one could say that about any philosophy!). There are various divisions, such as

(1) Anarchisim vs. Minarchism
(2) Deontological libertarianism vs. Consequentialist libertarianism
(3) “Right” (or Paleo-) libertarianism vs “Left” libertarianism, (which has its own subdivisions).
…and so forth.

I’d be curious to see an even more in-depth study of the psychology of different types of libertarians. For example,

What is the difference between the psychology of an anarchist and the psychology of a minarchist?

Why is it that some libertarians typically justify their moral claims deontologically, while others typically justify their moral claims consequentially?

Do “right” and “left” libertarians share traits closer to conservatives and liberals, respectively, (but to a lesser degree), while still sharing some core libertarian traits with each other?

I’m sure lots of other questions could be asked as well!