1/n Two interesting findings thus far from my analysis of Pew's March 2020 COVID-19 survey. First, white (and especially 'very') liberals are far more likely than all other ideological-racial subgroups to report being diagnosed with a mental health condition.
2/n Somewhat surprisingly, this difference further grows when we add standard controls
3/n We next turn to mean responses to this battery, which asks about the frequency at which respondents experienced specific mental health issues over the previous 7 days
4/n The differences are more modest here, but still significant
5/n They are also robust to several potential confounds (e.g. job loss, pay-cuts, marital status)
6/n However, entering the 'mental health diagnosis' variable into the model does (perhaps naturally) narrow the difference.
7/n In other words, at least some of the differences in the covid-mental health battery between white liberals and others are accounted for by the former's higher likelihood of being diagnosed with a mental health condition.
8/n It's possible that the disparities in self-reported diagnosis are simply or partly a function of white liberals being more likely to seek mental health evaluations. I don't have the data to answer this question. But given that they also tend to score higher on neuroticism..
9/n (and, not to mention, score lower on life satisfaction/happiness), I think at least some of this difference is genuine.
10/n I didn't write this thread to mock white liberals or their apparently disproportionate rates of mental illness (and you shouldn't either). Rather, this is a question that's underexplored and which may shed light on attitudinal differences towards various social policies.
11/n Overall, and with one exception (white moderates), those in 18-29 age group are more likely to report being diagnosed with a mental health condition. The differences among white liberals, though, are striking: almost half of white liberals in this cohort report a diagnosis.
12/n @jean_twenge would like to get your thoughts on this. I know you've studied some of these trends.
13/n Big 5 personality profiles for white libs who report/don't report receiving a mental health condition diagnosis.
14/n One of the things that concern me about liberal social engineering and norm-promotion efforts is that they ostensibly cater to those who are emotionally fragile or those with specific personality profiles. Those with different personality profiles or have higher emotional..
15/n stability are just expected to shut up and deal with it.
16/n Some of you asked for it, so here is the last chart broken down by gender. Biggest gap within age x ideological groups is between white liberal men (33.6%) and women (56.3%) in the 18-29 category
1/3 Most studies of the relationship between big 5 personality traits and political ideology examine the effects of broad or domain-level traits (e.g. 'Conscientiousness', 'Agreeableness'). However, the results of such studies can be misleading insofar as groups may have different or opposite scores on facets within those domain-level traits. For example, if liberals score higher than conservatives on the 'compassion' facet of agreeableness, and conservatives higher than liberals on the 'politeness' facet, these differences are likely to offset, resulting in a domain-level correlation with ideology that is small or indistinguishable from zero.
Given this issue, a relatively recent paper opted to examine the domain-level AND facet-level relationships with ideology. The chart below (you'll probably have to zoom in) visualizes/summarizes the estimates of these relationships.
2/3
Together, studies 1 and 2 found that A) the Openness (vs. Intellect) facet of Openness/Intellect (aka 'Openness to Experience) to be the strongest predictor of ideological liberalism. In fact, net of Openness, Intellect had no influence on ideology; B) after Openness, the 'Withdrawal' facet of Neurotism and the 'Compassion' facet of Agreeableness emerged as the 2nd and 3rd strongest positive predictors of ideological liberalism; and C) all facets of Conscientiousness were positively predictive of ideological conservatism, though the facet of 'Orderliness' showed a stronger relationship than that of 'Industriousness'; D) Some facets of extraversion appear to be mildly predictive of conservativism, which is interesting given that past studies have not found domain-level extraversion to be an ideologically-relevant trait.
Study 4, which utilized a different personality inventory, provides a substantive replication of these results: A) Aesthetic sensitivity, which is part of the 'Openness' facet, emerged as the strongest positive predictor of left-wing/liberal ideological orientations. Intellectual curiosity also has an independent positive influence, but one that is half the size of Aesthetic sensitivity; B) the Compassion and Respectfulness facets of Agreeableness were again positively predictive of left-wing/liberal and right-wing/conservative ideology, respectively; C) while comparatively more weakly, the Depression (and, to a smaller extent, Anxiety) facet of Neuroticism showed a significant positive association with left-wing/liberal ideology; D) All facets of consciousness were positively predictive of right-wing/conservative ideology, though 'Productiveness' was relatively more influential; E) Facets of Extraversion were again weak if significant predictors of ideology overall, though certain facets (e.g. Assertiveness) appear to point in the right-wing/conservative direction.
3/3
While interesting in their own right, I believe these findings could also have important implications for understanding the relatively poorer mental health of liberals vs. conservatives. Simply put--and for reasons I elaborate in a forthcoming paper--higher Neuroticism, higher Aesthetic sensitivity, higher empathic concern (closely related to Compassion), and lower Conscientiousness and Extraversion have all been previously identified as potential risk factors in the emergence of internalizing symptoms and disorders (depression, anxiety etc.). And, as it happens, liberals check off more of these boxes than conservatives.
1/Strange. Palestinian Christians face the same oppressive occupation as their Muslim peers, and yet they are consistently vastly less likely to support acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Such a mystery.
2/2 Socioeconomic, geographic, and other demographic variables hardly explain the difference. Again, such a mystery. Wonder what it could be.
Whoops. Just noticed that 'attacks' is missing in the title of the first chart. My bad.
1/ I'm thrilled to release my latest @ManhattanInst report, which presents findings from the most comprehensive study to date of public perceptual accuracy with respect to the prevalence and racial distribution of police use of force manhattan.institute/article/percep…
2/Until now, pretty much the only data we had on this topic was a 2021 @SkepResCenter survey, which featured a question that asked people to estimate the number of unarmed black men killed by police + the black share of deaths by police in 2019.
@SkepResCenter 3/ The current study goes MUCH further. It not only assesses the accuracy of people's perceptions of the overall prevalence of police use of lethal force and racial disparities therein, but also measures perceptual accuracy as it relates to (among other phenomena)..
1/ Similarly (and relatedly), while there are a few widening sex differences among 12th-graders on measures of depression, self-esteem, life satisfaction, self-derogation, and loneliness... https://t.co/GYpBJcbfCY
2/ ...the increasing ideological differences on these measures are far larger and more numerous
3/ To make this even clearer (and because many of these indicators were split-form/answered by sample subsets), I use Stimson's Dyadic Ratios algorithm (essentially a factor analysis of time series that adjusts for temporal interruptions between measures) to combine all of the..
) with additional data+more groups: the median unarmed black police shooting victim now returns 21x the # of article results for a white victim, and 7-11x the # for Hispanic and 'other' (Asian, Native American) victims.
2/ 93% of black victims returned at least 1 article result vs. 60% of white, 70% of Hispanic, and 80% of 'other' victims. 40% of black victims were featured in at least 1 NYT article, as compared to 10% of white, 12% of Hispanic, and 10% of other victims.
3/Using the Stanford Cable TV News Analyzer, I also find that 26.2% of black victims were mentioned at least once on a CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News broadcast as compared to 4.9% of white, 2.2% of Hispanic, and 0% of other victims
Schools might be a good place to start. None of this appears inevitable, at least by the data showcased in my and @epkaufm's latest @ManhattanInst report