I stumbled upon an interesting bit of research. The following shows the mindsets of typical Liberal and Conservative or Democrat and Republican voters. Again, it's long but it's definitely worth the time:
Authoritarian Dynamics and Unethical Decision Making: High Social Dominance Orientation Leaders and High Right-Wing Authoritarianism Followers. By: Son Hing, Leanne S., Bobocel, D. Ramona, Zanna, Mark P., McBride, Maxine V., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 0022-3514, 2007, Vol. 92, Issue 1
SDO
SDO was originally conceptualized as a measure of the degree to which individuals desire hierarchy among social groups (Pratto et al., 1994). SDO is related to prejudice and a preference for group dominance on the basis of gender, ethnicity, class, and the like (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). People high in SDO endorse nationalism and political-economic conservatism more and value egalitarianism less than others do (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Finally, as compared with groups that are lower in the social hierarchy, groups that are higher in the social hierarchy (e.g., men vs. women) tend to be higher in SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Early research regarding the link between SDO and a desire for interpersonal dominance indicated that the two constructs were independent (Pratto et al., 1994), 1 leading to the conclusion that “SDO specifically concerns group-based dominance rather than general or individual equality” (Pratto, 1999, p. 209).
However, more recent findings have suggested that SDO is related to interpersonal dominance, empathy, and immorality. First, SDO is moderately related to the desire for and the use of power (Altemeyer, 199. Observers indicate that people high in SDO feel superior to and are more dominant than others (Lippa & Arad, 1999). Further, as compared with people low in SDO, people high in SDO desire social status and economic status more (Pratto, Stallworth, Sidanius, & Siers, 1997; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Second, people higher in SDO are more tough minded, less concerned with others, less warm, and less sympathetic, compared with people lower in SDO (Duckitt, 2001; Heaven & Bucci, 2001; Lippa & Arad, 1999; Pratto et al., 1994). Third, the higher that people score on SDO, the higher that they score on Machiavellianism (r = .54) and on psychoticism and the lower that they score on measures of morality (Altemeyer, 1998; Heaven & Bucci, 2001).
The above findings show that SDO indicates more than a desire for group-based hierarchy. Indeed, it has been proposed that SDO can be seen as reflecting and “expressing the opposing motivational goals of superiority, dominance, or power over others versus egalitarian and altruistic social concern for others” (Duckitt, 2001, p. 50). In support of this claim, researchers have found that SDO is positively related to Schwartz's (1992) self-enhancement (i.e., hierarchy or power) value types and negatively related to self-transcendence (i.e., egalitarianism or social concern) value types (Duriez & van Hiel, 2002). Also, SDO correlates with a set of sociopolitical attitudes (betaisms) that involves favoring what is immediately beneficial to the self, regardless of fairness or morality (Saucier, 2000). Finally, people high in SDO hold a world view that is more competitive and marked by a struggle for power, whereas people low in SDO hold a world view that involves cooperating with and valuing others (Duckitt, 2001).
RWA
According to Altemeyer (1988, 1996, 199, right-wing authoritarians are high in (a) authoritarian submission, as they tend to defer to those whom they consider to be legitimate authority figures; (b) authoritarian aggression, as they tend to have punitive attitudes toward those labeled wrongdoers by authorities; and (c) conventionalism, as they tend to adhere to the conventions that they perceive as having been established by authority and society.
Research has supported the hypothesized links between RWA and conventionalism and authoritarian aggression (Altemeyer, 1996). For instance, people high in RWA deem conformity, traditionalism, social conservatism, security, and the approval of others more important than do people low in RWA (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, 2001; Duriez & van Hiel, 2002; Saucier, 2000; Walter, Thorpe, & Kingery, 2001). And people high in RWA are more prejudiced than others toward perceived wrongdoers and threatening outgroups (Altemeyer, 1996, 1998; Duckitt, 2006; Duncan, Peterson, & Winter, 1997). Of more direct relevance for the current research is the link between RWA and authoritarian submission. People high in RWA tend to value self-direction and personal freedom less than others do (Duckitt, 2001; Duriez & van Hiel, 2002). Also, RWA is positively correlated with self-reported levels of dutifulness and support for government bodies and the police, even if they engage in illegal acts (Altemeyer, 1996; Feather, 1998; Heaven & Bucci, 2001). After viewing Milgram's (1974) obedience experiment, people high in RWA assigned less blame to the teacher for shocking the learner (Blass, 1995), perhaps because people high in RWA saw teachers as dutifully obeying the experimenter's orders. Finally, with a role-playing task, it was found that when directed to do so by a superior, people high in RWA discriminated more in hiring decisions than did their counterparts in the control (no direction) condition. In contrast, people low in RWA were equally nondiscriminatory, regardless of condition (Petersen & Dietz, 2000).
[...]
Past research clearly demonstrates that SDO reflects a preference for group-based dominance (Pratto, 1999). More recent findings reveal that people high (vs. low) in SDO are oriented more generally toward dominance and self-interest than toward a concern for others (e.g., Duckitt, 2001), leading to the hypothesis that people high in SDO exemplify dominant leaders, and in this role, they should make unethical decisions if doing so serves their self-interest (Altemeyer, 199. In Study 1, we found evidence that SDO predicts participants' use of influence tactics to obtain a position of power. Within the role-playing context, in Study 2, we found that leaders high in SDO were more likely than leaders low in SDO to pollute a less developed nation and exploit its workers to save money, make the politically popular decision to discount a sexual harassment charge, and continue to falsely market a profitable but harmful pharmaceutical. In Study 4, we found that dyads made decisions that were more unethical when the leader was high in SDO (vs. RWA) because, within most dyads, the leader contributed more to deciding the outcome. In summary, our findings reveal that SDO predicts interpersonal dominance, a desire and ability to obtain a position of leadership, and a willingness to exploit others for self-interested gain. Together, this supports the notion that SDO reflects a general motivational goal of dominance and self-interest versus self-transcendence (Duckitt, 2001).
Research on RWA has demonstrated links to self-reported dutifulness, obedience, and submission to authority (Altemeyer, 1996), and in one study, a behavioral tendency to follow orders (Petersen & Dietz, 2000). In our research, we found that the tendency for people high in RWA to acquiesce is very much context dependent. When paired with an equal status stranger, in Study 1, people high in RWA and people low in RWA demonstrated the same likelihood of using influence tactics and acquiring the follower position. Moreover, when assigned to the leader role in Study 4, people high in RWA, as compared with leaders high in SDO, self-reported that they had as much influence over their partner and made more ethical decisions. There was no evidence that leaders high in RWA capitulate to their partners. In contrast, when assigned to the subordinate role in Study 3, people high in RWA agreed with the leader's unethical decision more readily, evaluated it more positively, and were judged more compliant, as compared with people low in RWA. Thus, people high in RWA supported unethical decision making only when their leader pointed the way. These findings suggest that people high in RWA do not have a general tendency for obedience, rather, consistent with Altemeyer's (198theory, they submit only to legitimate authority figures.
I feel like Melonie now.![]()



. Observers indicate that people high in SDO feel superior to and are more dominant than others (Lippa & Arad, 1999). Further, as compared with people low in SDO, people high in SDO desire social status and economic status more (Pratto, Stallworth, Sidanius, & Siers, 1997; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Second, people higher in SDO are more tough minded, less concerned with others, less warm, and less sympathetic, compared with people lower in SDO (Duckitt, 2001; Heaven & Bucci, 2001; Lippa & Arad, 1999; Pratto et al., 1994). Third, the higher that people score on SDO, the higher that they score on Machiavellianism (r = .54) and on psychoticism and the lower that they score on measures of morality (Altemeyer, 1998; Heaven & Bucci, 2001).


Bookmarks