In this article, we test if conservatism predicts psychological well-being longitudinally. We based the study on previous findings showing that conservatives score higher on different measures of well-being, such as life satisfaction and happiness. Most explanations in the literature have assumed that conservatism antecedes well-being without considering the alternative—that well-being may predict conservatism. In Study 1, using multilevel cross-lagged panel models with a two-wave longitudinal sample consisting of data from 19 countries (N = 8,740), we found that conservatism did not predict well-being over time. We found similar results in Study 2 (N = 2,554), using random-intercept cross-lagged panel models with a four-wave longitudinal sample from Chile. We discuss the main implications of these results for the literature examining the association between conservatism and well-being.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
2.
BiesanzJ. (2012). Autoregressive longitudinal models. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 459–471). Guilford Press.
3.
BrikiW.DagotL. (2020). Conservatives are happier than liberals: The mediating role of perceived goal progress and flow experience—A pilot study. Current Psychology, 41, 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00652-0
4.
ButzS.KieslichP.BlessH. (2017). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Comparing different explanations based on system justification, multiple group membership, and positive adjustment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2283
5.
Centro de Estudios de Conflicto y Cohesión Social. (2018). Manual de Usuario de Estudio Longitudinal Social de Chile, Primera Ola (2016). Chilean Social Longitudinal Study User Manual, First Wave (2016). Cross-sectional Corte Transversal (Versión 2.0).
6.
Centro de Estudios de Conflicto y Cohesión Social. (2020). Estudio Longitudinal Social de Chile, Versión Panel Combinada 2016-2019 (ELSOC_Wide_2016_2019_v1.00) [Archivo de datos]. Chilean Social Longitudinal Study, Merged Longitudinal Version 2016-2019. www.coes.cl
7.
DeSalvoK. B.FisherW. P.TranK.BloserN.MerrillW.PeabodyJ. (2006). Assessing measurement properties of two single-item general health measures. Quality of Life Research, 15(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-0887-2
8.
DienerE. (2009). Subjective well-being. In DienerE. (Ed.), The science of well-being (pp. 11–58). Springer.
9.
FedericoC.MalkaA. (2018). The contingent, contextual nature of the relationship between needs for security and certainty and political preferences: Evidence and implications. Advances in Political Psychology, 39(1), 3–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12477
10.
Gil de ZúñigaH.LiuJ. (2017). Second screening politics in the social media sphere: Advancing research on dual screen use in political communication with evidence from 20 countries. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.108/08838151.2017.1309420
11.
GodfreyE.SantosC.BursonE. (2017). For better or worse? System-justifying beliefs in sixth-grade predict trajectories of self-esteem and behavior across early adolescence. Child Development, 90(1), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12854
12.
HamakerE. L.KuiperR. M.GrasmanR. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
13.
HardingJ.SibleyC. (2013). The palliative function of system justification: Concurrent benefits versus longer-term costs to wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0101-1
14.
HeckR. (2009). Multilevel modeling with SEM. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 89–127). Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
HuL.BentlerP. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
16.
JettenJ.HaslamS.BarlowF. (2013). Bringing back the system: One reason why conservatives are happier than liberals is that higher socioeconomic status gives them access to more group memberships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612439721
17.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
18.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 111–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000046
19.
KalmoeN. (2020). Uses and abuses of ideology in political psychology. Political Psychology, 41(4), 771–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12650
20.
KroenkeK.SpitzerR. L.WilliamsJ. B. (2001). The PHQ-9. Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
21.
KuiperR.RyanO. (2018). Drawing conclusions from cross-lagged relationships: Re-considering the role of the time-interval. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(5), 809–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1431046
22.
LauA.CumminsR.McPhersonW. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the personal well-being index. Social Indicators Research, 72(3), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-0561-z
23.
LiW.WuJ.KouY. (2020). System justification enhances life satisfaction of high- and low-status people in China. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 588–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619866182
24.
LiuJ.KhanS. (2021). Implications of a psychological approach to collective remembering: Social representations as cultural ground for interpreting survey and experimental results. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909211007938
25.
LöweB.WahlI.RoseM.SpitzerC.GlaesmerH.WingenfeldK.SchneiderA.BrählerE. (2010). A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety; Validation and standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122(1–2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.019
MilfontT.FischerR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–121.
28.
MulderJ.HamakerE. (2021). Three extensions of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(4), 638–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1784739
NapierJ. L.BettinsoliM.SuppesA. (2020). The palliative function of system-justifying ideologies. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.002
OrthU.ClarkD. A.DonnellanM. B.RobinsR. W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1013–1034. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000358
34.
PrattoF.StallworthL. M.SidaniusJ. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(Pt. 1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01118.x
35.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review: DR, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
36.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
RogersN. (2020). Split screens: A content analysis of American liberals’ and conservatives’ respective television favorites. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000197
38.
SchlenkerB.ChambersJ.LeB. (2012). Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.009
SpitzerR.KroenkeK.WilliamsJ.LöweB. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
41.
StavrovaO.LuhmannM. (2016). Are conservatives happier than liberals? Not always and not everywhere. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.011
42.
SubramanianS. V.HuijtsT.PerkinsJ. M. (2009). Association between political ideology and health in Europe. European Journal of Public Health, 19(5), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp077
43.
SubramanianS. V.PerkinsJ. M. (2010) . Are republicans healthier than democrats?International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(3), 930–931. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp152
44.
Vargas-SalfateS.PaezD.KhanS.LiuJ.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2018). System justification enhances well-being: A longitudinal analysis of system justification in 18 countries. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(3), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12254
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
