Lavinia De Santis
Mara Morini- 1Department of Political and Social Science, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- 2Department of Political Science, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy
This paper builds on a comprehensive review of the main studies examining differences between right- and left-wing voters. Specifically, it identifies six key dimensions underlying these differences (personality; cognition; motivation; emotionality; social attitudes and group perception; time perspective) and advances the need to apply a mixed-method approach to assess them. By integrating existing insights with a multidimensional approach, the study seeks to provide a more systematic understanding of the psychological and ideological traits that distinguish voters across the political spectrum.
1 Introduction
How do voters' political attitudes reflect rooted worldviews and recurring patterns of thought and interaction? This article moves from the observation that, as shown by numerous international studies, right- and left-wing voters differ markedly in terms of the fundamental principles guiding their lives (Caprara et al., 2006; Piurko et al., 2011), personal traits (Caprara et al., 1999, 2006), cognitive styles (Chirumbolo, 2002; Jost et al., 2003; Van Hiel et al., 2004) and views of their in-group and the opposing out-group (Schepisi et al., 2019; Fitapelli et al., 2024). While an “ingroup” refers to a social group with which individuals identify, an “outgroup” refers to social group to which individuals do not belong and from which they perceive a cultural and social distance (Stark, 2006; Tajfel and Turner, 1979): the strength of attachment and loyalty is thus fundamental in shaping levels of authoritarianism, with reference to both right-wing and left-wing variant, with the first associated with conformity to traditional norms and support for limited state intervention in the economy (Nilsson and Jost, 2020), and the second based on a higher support for a centralized state control (Costello et al., 2022).
The present study aims to integrate the observed differences in right-wing and left-wing orientations across the following key dimensions: (1) personality; (2) cognition; (3) motivation; (4) emotionality; (5) social attitudes and group perception; (6) time perspective.
In this paper, we review major studies on these differences among voters, focusing on the various dimensions of interest and we propose to combine a questionnaire-based measures of cognitive and psychological tendencies, generally applied in such studies with a vignette, designed to assess individual behavior in a specific socio-political context. Finally, the discussion summarizes the main challenges concerning methodology, highlighting the need to go beyond consolidated research to guide future empirical, comparative research on voter behavior.
2 The analytical dimensions
The need to identify these analytical dimensions arises from the consideration that, within the chaotic magma of political studies, findings are frequently fragmented and based on diverse, sometimes inconsistent, methods. This study aims to integrate this kaleidoscope of studies, providing a more coherent account of differences among voters with respect to the following dimensions.
2.1 Personal traits
The first form of electoral heterogeneity concerns personality traits, which can be defined as “sets of tendencies to think, feel and act in relatively stable ways” (Steca et al., 2011, p. 74, our translation), with a strong biological basis. Several studies have shown their significant role in determining voters' political ideology (Caprara and Zimbardo, 2004; Caprara and Vecchione, 2007; Chirumbolo and Leone, 2010), with a pronounced association observed between Conscientiousness and Extraversion and right-wing political orientation (Caprara and Vecchione, 2007) and between Agreeableness and Openness to experience and left-wing political orientation (Caprara et al., 2007). A more recent study by Jonason (2014), aimed to move beyond this conceptualization, by examining additional “dark” dimensions of personality (Nai and Maier, 2023), found that higher conservatism is also positively linked to narcissism and that Machiavellianism is negatively related to higher liberalism.
2.2 Motivations and values
Regarding the motivational dimension, a seminal contribution is that of Jost et al. (2003), who proposed interpreting ideology as a “motivated social cognition” and explaining political conservatism in terms of epistemic and existential motivations. While the first consist of a set of “tendencies to reduce uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, cognitively related to the need for closure, order, and structure” (Chirumbolo, 2011, p. 90, our translation), the second represent a set of “psychological tendencies useful for managing threatening and dangerous situations, and relating to the pursuit of personal and social security” (Chirumbolo, 2011, p. 92, our translation).
Within the same dimension, a central role is also played by values, which can be defined as “a set of beliefs inextricably linked to affect” and related “to desirable goals that motivate action” (Schwartz, 2011, our translation, p. 14). Numerous studies have shown the existence of an elective affinity between value predispositions and political preferences: significant in this regard is the study conducted by Caprara et al. (2006), which revealed that center-right voters attach greater importance to success, power, conformity, tradition and security and that self-transcendence values are particularly salient among center-left voters. Research on moral foundations theory (Haidt and Graham, 2007; Graham et al., 2009) has subsequently shown that liberals generally place greater reliance on the Care/Harm principle, focusing on protecting vulnerable people, and Fairness/Reciprocity foundation, related to equality and proportionality in social relations. Differently, conservatives tend to value all foundations more evenly, and particularly Ingroup/Loyalty, related to the importance of group cohesion and loyalty within one's in-group, Authority/Respect, involving respect for leadership and authority, and Purity/Sanctity, concerning disgust and a deep concern for the sacred and the preservation of purity (ibid.).
2.3 Cognitive differences
The examination of individuals' factual knowledge about politics has long been another prominent focus of political scientists. Much of the research in this area has found that individuals at the political extremes possess greater political knowledge/sophistication than people with moderate views (Sidanius and Lau, 1989). However, a study conducted by De Keersmaecker et al. (2024) across 45 countries revealed that moderately left- and right-wing individuals are more knowledgeable than those at the political extremes or in the center, highlighting the absence of definitive and unanimous results in this area.
On the other hand, as far as cognitive styles are concerned, greater consensus has emerged regarding the association between right-wing ideology and cognitive rigidity (Kruglanski, 2004; Webster and Kruglanski, 1994) and dogmatism (e.g., Costello et al., 2022).
2.4 Time perspective
Another recent line of research on right-left differences focuses on time perspective (TP) (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999, 2009), that is “the totality of the individual's views of his psychological future and psychological past existing at a given time” (Lewin, 1951, p. 75). Within these studies, a six-nation study carried out by Rigoli (2025) highlighted that right-wing people tend to evaluate the past more positively than left-wing people—partly due to nostalgia for tradition (Robinson et al., 2015)—while left-wing participants expressed a better appraisal of the future, but exclusively in certain countries. Other scholars, such as Lammers and Ugurlar (2023), found that conservatives' stronger nostalgia toward the past also mirrors the way people perceive their nation's historical trajectory.
2.5 Emotions
Emotions constitute another fundamental dimension of voter heterogeneity and key driver of political decisions: by reflecting deeply rooted values (Schwartz, 1992), they can be interpreted as a particular type of “cognitive shortcut” (De Santis, 2024), capable of simplifying complex political evaluations through their bodily expression. Within this vein, a study conducted by Leone and Chirumbolo (2008) revealed a strong association between the tendency to avoid emotions and support for conservative measures (Leone and Chirumbolo, 2008, p. 759). Moreover, whithin this literature, a study conducted by De Santis (2024) showed that, in a polarized political scenario, conservative voters respond more strongly to stimuli such as anger and fear, whereas progressives are more responsive to emotions like trust and compassion.
2.6 Social attitudes and group perception
Although the debate in the literature remains broad, numerous studies have found that political orientation is also associated with distinct forms of social attitudes, such as authoritarianism. Originally conceptualized in classical studies as a stable feature of the human personality (Reich, 1933; Adorno et al., 1950), in contemporary studies the concept of authoritarianism has been operationalized as an ideological variable (Duckitt, 2001; Russo et al., 2019). Within these studies, a correlation was observed between the right-wing authoritarianism and conformity to social order and hierarchy (Nilsson and Jost, 2020) and between the left-wing authoritarianism and involvement in political violence (Costello et al., 2022).
Another line of contemporary research in political psychology has highlighted how left- and right-wing voters also differ in terms of how they perceive and relate to in-groups and out-groups (Lewin, 1947). For instance, research conducted by Schepisi et al. (2019) revealed that left-wing individuals expressed a stronger intergroup bias compared to right-wing participants. Consistent with these results, Fitapelli et al. (2024) found that progressives tend to be less inclined to help out-group members than conservatives.
3 Methods
In order to gain a nuanced understanding of the complex interrelationship between individual psychological orientations and political variables, we propose a framework which allows for a comprehensive view of ideological differences among voters in terms of personal traits, cognition, motivation, emotionality, social attitudes and time perspective. A key step necessary to advance theoretically and empirically mature research is to build an appropriate assessment tools for understanding and addressing this phenomenon. In doing so, we propose a mixed method which combine a questionnaire (random sample) addressing the most relevant existing scales measuring the psychological differences outlined in our framework and a qualitative approach, mainly based on specific vignettes. These can be defined as “short stories about hypothetical characters in specified circumstances, to whose situation the interviewee is invited to respond” (Finch, 1987, p. 105). As far as the quantitative approach is concerned, we suggest using a first set of questions on socio-demographic data and a range of psychological attitudes that are central to structuring political orientations, allowing for the standardization and comparison of data over time and space. We also recommend adopting a multi-study approach, involving diverse well-stratified samples, covering the entire political spectrum—right, left, center, and politically unaligned individuals. This approach seeks to overcome the limitations of a binary left-right polarization and enhances the generalizability of findings compared to studies relying solely on narrow samples, such as university students.
Based on these premises, the design suggested consists of two complementary components: (1) a self-report questionnaire assessing selected stable individual differences, and (2) a vignette-based section capturing participants' emotional and moral responses in realistic social contexts that allow us to overcome the limitations of self-definition and the random sample. Given the complexity and number of individual differences involved in our framework, we propose to structure the research as a series of interconnected studies, each examining how individual psychological and political attitudes impact voters' attitudes toward in-group and out-group members. For example, in Mark Anthony Mujer Quintos' study (2017), 12 vignettes are presented that describe morally ambiguous situations (in which it is unclear whether the action is right or wrong), featuring characters belonging to different social or ethnic groups, to whom certain group labels were applied. Vignettes were also used by Fitapelli et al. (2024), who designed a study in which the authors hypothesized that people with extreme political views will intend to help in-group members more so than out-group members in times of extreme political polarization.
Based on this approach, our proposal emphasizes the integration of specific moral evaluations and emotional responses, in context such as intergroup conflicts, political leadership evaluation or public opinion formation, with measures of stable psychological and ideological attitudes. This approach aims to deepen the understanding of the psychological roots of polarization, by adopting and integrated focus on multiple dimensions of individual differences in political choices.
4 Discussion
Although vast, the literature examined on left- and right-wing electorates is markedly disorganized, with studies varying widely in focus, measurement and methodological approaches. Despite its fragmented nature, a review of the literature reveals several recurring patterns. Starting from the state of art in the Methods section, this article tried to highlight the importance of mix methods in electoral studies, with the specific aim to guide future research in political ideology, by providing a challenging comprehensive framework and a mixed-methods approach, designed to facilitate replicability.
Author contributions
LD: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Methodology. MM: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Methodology.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harpers.
Caprara, G., and Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: a congruency model of political preference. Am. Psychol. 59, 581–594. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.581
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., and Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Personality profiles and political parties. Polit. Psychol. 20, 175–197. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00141
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S. H., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., and Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: values, traits, and political choice. Polit. Psychol. 27, 1–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x
Caprara, G. V., and Vecchione, M. (2007). Politici ed elettori. Psicologia delle scelte di voto, Firenze: Giunti.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Barbaranelli, C., and Fraley, R. C. (2007). When likeness goes with liking: the case of political preference. Polit. Psychol. 28, 609–632. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00592.x
Chirumbolo, A. (2002). The relationship between need for cognitive closure and political orientation: the mediating role of authoritarianism. Pers. Individ. Differ. 32, 603–610. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00062-9
Chirumbolo, A. (2011). “Basi psicologiche e motivazionali dell'ideologia politica”, in Psicologia della politica, eds. P. Catellani, and G. Sensales (Milano: Raffaello Cortina), 71–94.
Chirumbolo, A., and Leone, L. (2010). (2010). Personality and politics: the role of the HEXACO model of personality in predicting ideology and voting. Pers. Individ. Differ. 49, 43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.03.004
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. D., Tasimi, A., Lilienfeld, S. O., et al. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 122, 135–170. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000341
De Keersmaecker, J., Schmid, K., and Sibley, C. G. (2024). The association between political orientation and political knowledge in 45 nations. Sci. Rep. 14:2590. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-53114-z
De Santis, L. (2024). Emozioni e valori nelle decisioni di voto: un'affinità elettiva?. Rivista di Digital Politics 4, 293–318. doi: 10.53227/115056
Duckitt, J. (2001). “A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 33, ed. M. P. Zanna (Academic Press), 41–113.
Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 21, 105–114. doi: 10.1177/0038038587021001008
Fitapelli, B., Hewett, S., McQuade, B., Berg, E., Thaler, D., Gay, L., et al. (2024). Political polarization, ingroup bias, and helping behavior: do we help others who are “on the other political team?”. Psychol. Stud. 70, 26–34. doi: 10.1007/s12646-024-00810-5
Graham, J., Haidt, J., and Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 1029–1046. doi: 10.1037/a0015141
Haidt, J., and Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Soc. Just Res. 20, 98–116. doi: 10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Jonason, P. K. (2014). Personality and politics. Pers. Individ. Differ. 71, 181–184. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.08.002
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., and Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol. Bull. 129, 339–375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Lammers, J., and Ugurlar, P. (2023). Political-ideological differences in cultural pessimism and nostalgia reflect people's evaluation of their nation's historical developments. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 15, 370–380. doi: 10.1177/19485506231173735
Leone, L., and Chirumbolo, A. (2008). Conservatism as motivated avoidance of affect: need for affect scales predict conservatism measures. J. Res. Pers. 42, 755–762. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.08.001
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Hum. Relat. 1, 5–41. doi: 10.1177/001872674700100103
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. New York: Harper and Row.
Nai, A., and Maier, J. (2023). Dark Politics: The Personality of Politicians and the Future of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/978019768001.0001
Nilsson, A., and Jost, J. T. (2020). The authoritarian-conservatism nexus. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 148–154. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.03.003
Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S. H., and Davidov, E. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Polit. Psychol. 32, 537–561. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00828.x
Quintos, M. A. (2017). The effect of in-group and outgroup labels on the evaluation of people's behavior: a survey experiment using 12 morally ambiguous situations. Asia Pac. J. Educ. Arts Sci. 4, 34–43. doi: 10.17758/URUAE.UH0516066
Rigoli, F. (2025). Ideology shapes evaluation of history within the general population. Polit. Psychol. 46, 25–47. doi: 10.1111/pops.12971
Robinson, M. D., Cassidy, D. M., Boyd, R. L., and Fetterman, A. K. (2015), The politics of time: conservatives differentially reference the past liberals differentially reference the future. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 45, 391–399. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12306
Russo, S., Roccato, M., and Mosso, C. (2019). Authoritarianism, societal threat, and preference for antidemocratic political systems. TPM 26, 419–429. doi: 10.4473/TPM26.3.7
Schepisi, M., Porciello, G., Bufalari, I., Aglioti, S. M., and Panasiti, M. S. (2019). Left threatened by right: political intergroup bias in the contemporary Italian context. Front. Psychol. 10:26. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00026
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries”, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. M. Zanna (New York: Academic Press), 1–65. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Schwartz, S. H. (2011). “I valori umani di base: un‘introduzione”, in I valori nell'Italia contemporanea, eds. G. V. Caprara, E. Scabini, P. Steca, and S. H. Schwartz (Milano: FrancoAngeli), 13–44.
Sidanius, J., and Lau, R. R. (1989). Political sophistication and political deviance: a matter of context. Polit. Psychol. 10, 85–109. doi: 10.2307/3791589
Steca, P., Monzani, D., and Greco, A. (2011). “Valori, motivi e tratti di personalità. Differenze tra persone e tipi di persone”, in I valori nell'Italia contemporanea, eds. G. V. Caprara, E. Scabini, P. Steca, and S. H. Schwartz (Milano: FrancoAngeli), 69–93.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979). “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. W. G. Austin, and S. Worchel (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole), 33–47.
Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., and Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 824–37. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264333
Webster, D. M., and Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 1049–1062. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
Zimbardo, P. G., and Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable individual-differences metric. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1271–1288. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271
Keywords: electoral differences, psychological attitudes, in-group, out-group, authoritarianism, time perspective
Citation: De Santis L and Morini M (2025) Understanding voter heterogeneity: an integrated psychological framework. Front. Polit. Sci. 7:1709207. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2025.1709207
Received: 19 September 2025; Revised: 12 October 2025; Accepted: 17 November 2025;
Published: 03 December 2025.
Edited by:
Luigi Di Gregorio, University of Tuscia, ItalyReviewed by:
Monika Prusik, University of Warsaw, PolandCopyright © 2025 De Santis and Morini. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Lavinia De Santis, bGF2aW5pYS5kZXNhbnRpc0BwaGQudW5pcGkuaXQ=
†These authors have contributed equally to this work