Individual Differences are a Better Predictor of Moral Language Use in Australian Prime Ministers’ Speeches than is their Political Party
Moral foundation theory argues humans respond to five moral dimensions: a) care/harm; b) fairness; c) ingroup; d) authority; and e) purity. Research and theory from the US suggest progressives appeal to the care/harm dimension, while conservatives appeal to a more balanced profile. Using a corpus of nearly 5000 speeches by Australian prime ministers from the 1940s to 2013, we put this claim to the test. In simple models we find some support for this basic distinction. We then apply more complex multilevel models with random intercepts for prime ministers and new weighted log-odds models that allow us to map unique moral word use by a political party or prime minister. These models suggest a more complex picture. Here, the effect of party on moral language use is small and individual differences and historical context matters more.