UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title A Nation Under Joint Custody: How Conflicting Family Models Divide US Politics Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4jt0p1hw Author Wehling, Eva Elisabeth Publication Date 2013 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California A Nation under Joint Custody: How Conflicting Family Models divide US Politics By Eva Elisabeth Wehling A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor George Lakoff, Co-chair Professor Terry Regier, Co-chair Professor Eve Sweetser Professor Thomas Shannon Spring 2013 Abstract A Nation under Joint Custody: How Conflicting Family Models divide US Politics by Eva Elisabeth Wehling Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor George Lakoff, Co-chair Professor Terry Regier, Co-chair Across the globe and throughout history, politics are regularly divided into “left-leaning” and “right-leaning” camps. Explaining the sources of this conservative-liberal divide has become a major quest in the cognitive and social sciences. Early attempts have focused on self- interest as a possible explanation. However, as the self-interest hypothesis repeatedly failed, researchers’ belief in its explanatory power dwindled. Recent investigations have thus begun to tap into genetic material, personality traits, psychological needs, and moral concerns as possible explanations. One early account of the moral underpinnings that guide conservative and liberal politics is Moral Politics Theory (Lakoff, 1996). It proposes that conservatives and liberals endorse different moral worldviews, which conceptually unify their positions on issues as diverse as abortion, education, the economy, or the environment. Those worldviews are grounded in different beliefs about ideal parenting: conservatives endorse a strict-father and liberals a nurturant-parent model. The theory proposes that parenting beliefs are mapped onto national politics via the NATION AS FAMILY metaphor, and that language use in synch with the two models can significantly influence people’s perception of political issues. More specifically, Moral Politics Theory has three principal components: First, it holds that the two parenting models form unified and independent belief systems that are predictive of conservatism and liberalism. Second, it predicts that people engage in a metaphoric mapping process when making political judgments, mapping parenting beliefs onto governance. Third, it predicts that issue framings in terms of the two worldviews result in framing effects, and that only those who endorse a given worldview are susceptible to framings that echo it. Despite the academic and political world’s fascination with Moral Politics Theory, its three principal components have not been tested to date. The present research is a comprehensive test of Moral Politics Theory’s principal components in a series of six studies. Studies 1 and 2 test the two parenting models’ internal consistency, conceptual independence and predictive power for conservative and liberal political attitudes. Studies 3 and 4 examine the mediating role of the NATION AS FAMILY metaphor for political judgments in terms of parenting models. Finally, Studies 5 and 6 investigate framing effects associated with the two worldviews. 1 To my parents, Uta and Gerd i Acknowledgements This thesis is based on research I have conducted together with Laura Saslow and Mat- thew Feinberg over three years. I am deeply indebted to them, and I thank them for shar- ing their brilliant insights and expertise with me. This would not have been possible without “the team”. I would also like to thank Ingrid Melvaer, who has contributed immensely to this re- search, especially in the beginning stages. I am deeply thankful to George Lakoff. Without his guidance and support this disserta- tion would not have been possible. His insights and expertise helped tremendously in conducting the research presented in this thesis. It is George Lakoff’s work that inspired me to pursue research on the moral underpinnings of political cognition. I am forever thankful to him for sharing his enthusiasm and profound knowledge with me over the years. Last but not least, I am greatly appreciative of the many hours that he dedicated to reading my research and engaging me in discussions about it over coffee and croissants at Yali’s Café in Berkeley. Any shortcomings in this thesis are mine. I am very thankful to Terry Regier, who has become an important mentor for my work over the past three years. His encouragement and insights contributed immensely to my research, and I am indebted to him for taking hours at a time to discuss my work with me. Terry Regier in many ways inspired me to take my research to the next level. Without his mentorship this thesis would not have been possible. I have deep feelings of gratitude toward Eve Sweetser for all that she has done for me. It was she who encouraged me to join the Linguistics Department at the University of California, Berkeley as a graduate student in 2007. Her kindness and guidance during the past six years made all the difference. It was Eve Sweetser who inspired me to pursue research on gesture in addition to my work on political cognition, and gesture research has become an important part of my work. If I could have written two dissertation theses, one would have been on gesture. I would like to thank my fourth committee member, Thomas Shannon, for his kindness and support in writing this thesis. In addition, I am very grateful to Belén Flores, who helped me navigate through all the administrative matters that come with conducting research at UC, Berkeley. Her support and continuous encouragement were always appreciated. I am deeply thankful to my graduate student colleagues Iksoo Kwon, Tom Recht, Joshua Marker, Mara Green, and Kashmiri Stec for their friendship and insights. Kash- miri Stec proofread my thesis from the first to the last page and provided me with im- portant feedback. Her time and efforts are most appreciated. I am immensely grateful to Valerie Wright, who also proofread my thesis and provided important feedback. As always, I am thankful to my parents, Uta and Gerd, for their love and support. I am ii thankful to my brother, Justus, for always having my back, and to my sister, Philine, for her love and friendship. Finally, I am deeply thankful to Shatzilion for his loving support over the months of writing this thesis. iii Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………….…..….. 1 Chapter 1: An Introduction to Moral Politics Theory 1. The self-interest myth………………………………………………………. 8 2. Morality and politics…………………………………….………………….. 9 3. Moral Politics Theory………………………………………………..…..…. 11 3.1. Authoritarian and authoritative parenting……………………………... 12 3.2. The strict-father model………………………………………………… 13 3.3. The nurturant-parent model……………………………………………. 14 4. Ideal parenting models and family socialization………………………..….. 16 5. Biconceptualism……………………………………………………………. 17 5.1. Bound and open biconceptualism………………………………….….. 18 6. Influence and criticism of Moral Politics Theory………………………….. 19 7. Complementary empirical support for Moral Politics Theory……………... 20 7.1. The NATION AS FAMILY metaphor in political discourse……………… 20 7.2. Elite-to-citizen and citizen discourse………………………………….. 21 7.2.1. Elite-to-citizen discourse…………………………………………... 21 7.2.2. Citizen discourse…………………………………………………… 22 7.3. Predictive power for conservatism and liberalism…………………….. 23 7.4. Causal effects………………………………………………………… 24 7.5. Biconceptualism……………………………………………………….. 24 8. Open questions and present research……………………………………… 25 8.1. Validity and predictive power for conservatism and liberalism………. 26 8.2. The NATION AS FAMILY metaphor…………………………………….. 26 8.3. Moral framing and open biconceptualism……………………………... 27 Chapter 2: Testing the strict-father and nurturant-parent model: Internal consistency, conceptual independence, and predictive power for conservatism and liberalism Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 29 iv 1. Two coherent worldviews………………………………………………….. 29 1.1. Moral traits, moral parenting, child nature beliefs, and world beliefs… 29 1.2. The strict-father model………………………………………………… 31 1.2.2. Moral traits………………………………………………………… 31 1.2.2. Moral parenting……………………………………………………. 32 1.2.3. Child nature and world beliefs…………………………………….. 33 1.3. The nurturant-parent model……………………………………………. 34 1.3.1. Moral traits………………………………………………………… 34 1.3.2. Moral parenting……………………………………………………. 35 1.3.3. Child nature and world beliefs…………………………………….. 37 2. Two distinct worldviews…………………………………………………… 37 3. Open questions and present research………………………………………. 38 4. Studies 1 and 2: Internal consistency, conceptual independence, scale creation, and predictive power for conservatism and liberalism……... 39 4.1. Study 1: Internal consistency, conceptual independence, and scale creation……………………………………………………… 39 4.2. Study 2: Predictive power for conservatism and liberalism…………... 44 4.3. Discussion……………………………………………………………... 46 5. Open questions for future research…………………………………………. 46 5.1. Belief types……………………………………………………………. 46 5.2. Low endorsement of strict-father and nurturant-parent morality……… 46 Chapter 3: Conceptual metaphor, political cognition, and the NATION AS FAMILY meta- phor Introduction………………………………………………………………….…