On Sanders, Trump, and rhinoceroses: Quantifying subjective construals helps predict political attitudes
People with different worldviews may have different interpretations for the same object. Freedom fighters for some are terrorists for others; immigrants can be seen as posing a threat or needing protection. To incorporate such differences in perspective into psychological models, I propose the construct of value-instantiating beliefs, or perceived consequences of actions or events for basic human values. I hypothesize that such beliefs moderate the relationship between personal values and attitudes. In a preregistered mixed-methods study (N = 2038) I assess personal value priorities, attitudes, and perceived consequences of four political behaviors: voting for Donald Trump, voting for Bernie Sanders, supporting an anti-abortion bill, and donating to a pro-immigrant charity. Qualitative data corroborates the differences in perceived consequences based on political affiliation: e.g. liberals saw voting for Trump mostly in light of negative consequences for universalistic values, while conservatives reported positive consequences for self-direction and security. Quantitative data confirms the moderation hypothesis. Including value-instantiating beliefs and moderations in the models significantly improved the predictions of attitudes towards and intentions to perform the four behaviors.