With our supplemental program we counted word

This preview shows page 11 - 12 out of 18 pages.

With our supplemental program, we counted word frequencies for all words in our LIWC dictionary and computed the liberal– conservative difference in percent usage of each word. We selected the 23 words and word stems 4 that yielded more than a 0.02% difference. For each of the 3,281 uses of these words, we copied the surrounding context of 2–3 sentences into a spreadsheet and then scrambled its rows. Four raters scored each passage, blind to its origins, by assigning it a score of 1 if the passage supported or was consistent with the values or concerns of the relevant foundation, a score of 1 if the passage seemed to negate or reject the foundation in question, or a score of 0 if the contextual usage was unclear or irrelevant to the foundation. Every passage was rated by two or three raters, and the raters achieved a reliability of .79. Ratings from multiple raters were averaged to create a “contextually validated usage” score for each word. These usage scores are more valid indicators than the raw counts of how speakers value each of the five foundations. Results The raw percentages of words related to each foundation are given in Table 1. As the first line shows, 0.44% of all the 177,629 words in our liberal sermon corpus were among the 51 words in the Harm category of our LIWC dictionary, whereas only 0.26% of all the 136,706 words in our conservative sermon corpus fell into this category. These raw percentages show the predicted effects for four of the five foundations: liberals used Harm and Fairness words more frequently than did conservatives, whereas conservatives used Authority and Purity words more frequently than did liberals. The only 4 violen and war (for Harm); justice and justifi (for Fairness); communit , group , individual , and nation (for Ingroup); authorit , command , father , law , leader , mother , obedien , obey , rebel , submi , and tradition (for Authority); holy , sin , sinner , and sins (for Purity). violation of our prediction occurred for words in the Ingroup category, which were used more frequently by liberal than conservative speakers. As Table 2 shows, however, the contextually validated ratings support the moral foundations hypothesis for all five foundations. Reading the difference-driving words in context, we found that liberal speakers expressed concerns more in line with Harm and Fairness than did conservative speakers, and conservative speakers expressed concerns more in line with Ingroup, Authority, and Purity than did liberal speakers. Notably, the effect size on the Ingroup foundation reverses sign and conforms to our prediction. This reversal occurred because the words communit , group , individual , and nation were used more frequently in liberal sermons, but analysis of these words in context revealed that liberals were much more likely than conservatives to use these words in order to reject the foundational concerns of ingroup loyalty and group solidarity. Usage ratings for liberal uses of group were close to zero, and usage ratings for individual were negative, indicating

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture