Content uploaded by Eric J. Connolly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric J. Connolly on Sep 27, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Political ideology predicts involvement in crime☆
John Paul Wright, Ph.D.
a,b,
⁎,KevinM.Beaver,Ph.D.
b,c
, Mark Alden Morgan, M.A.
a
, Eric J. Connolly, Ph.D.
d
a
School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, United States
b
Center for Social and Humanities Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
c
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127, United States
d
Department of Criminal Justice, Pennsylvania State University, Abington, PA 19001, United States
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 25 April 2016
Received in revised form 24 October 2016
Accepted 31 October 2016
Available online xxxx
Political ideology represents an imperfect yet important indicator of a host of personality traits and cognitive
preferences. These preferences, in turn, seemingly propel liberals and conservatives towards divergent life-
course experiences. Criminal behavior represents one particular domain of conduct where differences rooted
in political ideology may exist. Using a national dataset, we test whether and to what extent political ideology
is predictive of self-reported criminal behavior. Our results show that self-identified political ideology is mono-
tonically related to criminal conduct cross-sectionally and prospectively and that liberals self-report more crim-
inal conduct than do conservatives. We discuss potential causal mechanisms relating political ideology to
individual conduct.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Political ideology
Liberal
Conservative
Crime
Criminal behavior
1. Introduction
Self-identified political ideology reflects more than partisan support
for specific governmental policies. Findings from an impressive range of
studies document connections between ideological placement along a
traditional left–right political distribution and a broad range of individ-
ual differences (Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009). These differences appear
to be partially innate. For example, twin studies find that self-reported
political ideology is almost 60% heritable, while molecular genetic stud-
ies have found tentative links between political ideology and single nu-
cleotide polymorphisms (Funk et al., 2013; Hatemi et al., 2011; Settle,
Dawes, & Fowler, 2009). Brain imaging and physiological studies docu-
ment variation in neurological and neuroendocrine activity that corre-
lates with liberal-conservative ideological preferences (Amodio, Jost,
Master, & Yee, 2007; Kanai, Feilden, Firth, & Rees, 2011; Oxley et al.,
2008; Schreiber et al., 2013). Numerous studies, moreover, converge
to show that personality factors vary between liberals and conservatives
(De Neve, 2015; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008), as do cognitive styles (Kahan,
2007, 2012), moral orientations (Haidt, 2012), and behavioral prefer-
ences (Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). Placement along the tradi-
tional political ideology distribution thus reflects a constellation of
neurological, psychological, and behavioral orientations that influence
a range of experiences across the life-course.
While much scholarly effort has gone into discovering differences be-
tween liberals and conservatives, comparatively less attention has been
given to investigating whether political ideology predicts behavior across
a wide range of domains. One of these unexamined domains is criminal
behavior. This oversight is potentially consequential because political ide-
ology may be associated with behavioral styles that include a diverse
array of risky behaviors—behaviors that may bring with them meaningful
interpersonal consequences and that may bring harm to others.
The absence of studies in this area precludes any definitive state-
ments about the relationship, if any, between political ideology and
criminal behavior. That said, there are substantive, yet divergent, theo-
retical reasons to believe that criminal behavior may be tied to political
ideology. “Which end of the political spectrum is more prone to exhibit
behavioral restraint and obedience to established social norms and dic-
tates,”asks Ludeke and Rasmussen (2016, p. 30),and“…Which end is
more prone to disinhibited violations of societal conventions and ta-
boos?”According to Ludeke and Rasmussen (2016), the answer is
straightforward: a large body of research shows that conservatives
score higher on measures of constraint and obedience while liberals
score higher on measures of openness and disinhibition.
Liberalsdo appear to score higher than conservatives on the person-
ality trait of openness to experience (Carney et al., 2008; Hodson, Hogg,
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
☆This research used data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard
Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-
HD31921 from th e Eunice Kennedy Shriver Nationa l Institute of Chi ld Health and
Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special
acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the
original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should
contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC
27516-2524 (addhealth@unc.edu). No direct support was received from grant P01-
HD31921 for this analysis.
⁎Corresponding author at: School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221, United States.
E-mail address: john.wright@uc.edu (J.P. Wright).
PAID-07943; No of Pages 6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Please cite this article as: Wright, J.P., et al., Political ideology predicts involvement in crime, Personality and Individual Differences (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
& MacInnis, 2009). Openness to experience involves two components
that are possibly crime inducing: 1) a tolerance of varied lifestyles and
behaviors and 2) a seeking out of new, risky, and exciting experiences.
Criminological studies document an association between personal
values that not only tolerate, but also that embrace a lifestyle that in-
cludes crime and analogous behaviors, such as drug use and risky sexual
behavior(Caspi et al., 1994, 1997; Miller & Lynam, 2001). Moreover, risk
seeking, novelty seeking, and a desire to engage in thrill seeking behav-
iors has long been linked to criminal conduct (Crysel, Crosier, &
Webster, 2013; Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Shook & Clay,
2011).
Recent studies have added another reason why liberals may commit
more crime than conservatives. Analyzing data on a modified Stroop
test across three study conditions, Clarkson et al. (2015) found that con-
servatives consistently scored higher than liberals on self-control. Part
of the association was driven by beliefs in free will, which conservatives
subscribe to significantly more than liberals (Haidt, 2012). Self-control,
we note, has emerged in criminology as an omnipotent predictor of
criminal behavior across time, situation, and geographical setting
(Coyne & Wright, 2014; Moffitt et al., 2010).
That said, other studies suggest that liberal ideology should be re-
lated to less criminal involvement. Haidt (2012) and his colleagues,
for example, have argued persuasively that liberals and conserva-
tives have a strong disposition to view behaviors through a moral
prism but that liberals tend to emphasize care and harm over other
competing moral dimensions. According to Haidt (2012) the “care/
harm”dimension of moral reasoning reflects a cognitive-moral eval-
uative frame that prioritizes nurturance and caring and that high-
lights the potential harm of certain actions. Understood this way,
liberal ideology may have a prophylactic effect since criminal behav-
ior often entails harming others.
In a similar way, contrasting hypotheses suggest that political con-
servatism may, or may not, be associated with criminal behavior. Con-
servatives may commit comparatively more crime because they are
more likely to endorse social inequality (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, &
Sulloway, 2003), and because they are more likely to embrace retribu-
tive justice and to be more authoritarian and punitive (Jost, Kay, &
Thorisdottir, 2009; Kugler, Jost, & Noorbaloochi, 2014).
Conversely, conservatives place a strong emphasis on law and order
(Haidt & Graham, 2007), they value social conformity and tradition
(Haidt, 2012), and they give greater social legitimacy to authority posi-
tions, such as police officers (Johnson, Hogan, Zonderman, Callens, &
Rogolsky, 1981). Conservatives are also more religious, attend religious
ceremonies more frequently, and place a stronger emphasis on religious
values than do liberals (Johnson, Jang, Larson, & De Li, 2001). These
characteristics of conservatives may inhibit behaviors that are not only
criminal but that are also risky or that conflict with religious ethics.
Our study represents an initial assessment of the possible connec-
tions between self-rated political ideology and self-reported criminal
conduct. Using a national, longitudinal dataset we test cross-sectionally
and prospectively if political ideology predicts criminal participation.
Because crime and political ideology vary across demographic groups,
we also examine the connection between political ideology and crimi-
nal participation across demographic subgroups.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Data for this study came from the publically available National
Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). The
Add Health is a longitudinal, nationally representative sample of youth
in high school during the 1994–95 academic year. To date, four waves
of data have been collected. Waves 1 and 2 were collectedwhen respon-
dents were primarily adolescents, while Wave 3 data were collected be-
tween 2001 and 2002 when respondents were between ages 18 and 28.
Wave 4 data were collected in 2008 and 2009. Criminal involvement
measures were included across all waves, however, only in Wave 3
were respondents asked about their civic engagement, including their
political party affiliation and their political orientation. Our analytical
sample contains full data on 4882 cases that span the Wave 2 through
Wave 4 collection periods. Detailed information about the Add Health
dataset can be found in Harris et al. (2003).
2.2. Measures
Self-reported political ideology was assessed through a common 5-
point Likert scale (1 = extremely conservative to 5 = extremely liber-
al). This standard unidimensional assessment has been found to be sub-
stantively predictive of a range of personality traits and behaviors (Jost,
Nosek, & Gosling, 2008). Other studies have found that individual place-
ment along the continuum of political ideology accurately reflects deep-
ly rooted moral sentiments that vary between liberals and conservatives
and overlapping but distinct cognitiveprocesses (Kahan, 2012)andper-
sonality traits (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010).
Measures of criminal involvement were drawn from Waves 2
through 4. In each wave, respondents were asked to report how many
times in the past 12 months they had deliberately damaged property,
had stolen items worth less than or more than $50, had gone into a
house or building to steal something, had used a weapon tosteal some-
thing, had sold marijuana or otherdrugs, had held, bought or sold stolen
property, and had committed credit card fraud. Response sets ranged
from 0 = “never”,to1=“1 or 2 times,”to 2 = “3 or 4 times,”to 3 =
“5ormoretimes.”Responses were summed across items. We restricted
our analyses to non-violent offending because base rates on individual
items assessing violent behavior were very low and because further
analyses did not find that political ideology was associated with violent
offending. Scale reliabilities were acceptable across waves (Wave 2 =
0.80, Wave 3 = 0.73, Wave 4 = 0.69).
We controlled for the effects of demographic variables typically as-
sociated with criminal involvement. Age, measured in years, gender
(1 = female), years of education, and race. Race was coded as 0 =
white, 1 = Hispanic, and, 2 = black.
The analytical sample was 47% female (SD = 0.50) and 59% white
(SD = 0.85). The average respondent was 22 years old (SD =1.8),
had 13 years of education (SD = 1.99), and was politically neutral
(Mean = 2.97, SD = 0.76). The distribution of scores along the political
ideology continuum was approximately normal. Over 57% of respon-
dents were politically centrist with 20% scoring politically to the right
and 23% scoring politically on the left.
2.3. Analytical approach
We first examined the univariate association between political ideolo-
gy and our measures of criminal involvement. Analysis of variance with
appropriate post-hoc tests were utilized. We then assessed the influence
of political ideology on criminal behavior through negative binomial re-
gression. Negative binomial regression was used because our dependent
variables were count measures and were over-dispersed. We calculated
initial models that included the measure of political ideology and the con-
trol measures and then analyzed sub-group differences within sex and
race. This approach allows us to test the generality of the effect associated
with political ideology.
Capitalizing on the longitudinal nature of the Add Health data, our sec-
ond set of analyses included a measure of criminal involvement from the
prior wave. Numerous studies have shown that criminal behavior is tem-
porally stable (Barnes & Boutwell, 2012). Inclusion of a measure of prior
criminal misconduct imperfectly controls for unobserved heterogeneity
in criminal offending and thus offers a conservative test of the association
between political ideology and criminal behavior.
2J.P. Wright et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Wright, J.P., et al., Political ideology predicts involvement in crime, Personality and Individual Differences (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
3. Results
3.1. ANOVA results
Significant mean differences in criminal behavior across the political
ideology spectrum were detected within and across waves. At Wave 3,
F= 14.78 (pb0.001) and at Wave 4, F= 8.60 (pb0.001). Results of
the ANOVA are presented graphically in Fig. 1. To aid in interpretation,
we converted the measures of criminal behavior to Z-scores. As is read-
ily visible, individuals who classified themselves as very conservative
had the lowest level of self-reported offending across both waves. Aver-
age offending scores increased across consecutive ideological classifica-
tions. In each case, however, self-identified liberals and those who were
very liberalreported the highest average offending scores. Furthermore,
individuals who classified themselves as very liberal reported the
highest average scores across both waves. Post-hoc tests found signifi-
cant differences between those who self-classified as very liberal and
each group, with the differences becoming especially pronounced be-
tween the very liberalgroup and the conservative group (Wave 3 differ-
ence = 0.62 SD, Wave 4 difference= 0.62 SD) and the very liberal group
compared to the very conservative group (Wave 3 difference = 0.80 SD,
Wave 4 difference = 0.66 SD). We note the consistency in the estimates
and the consistency in the comparative differences between ideological
groups across waves—a period that spanned approximately 7 years.
3.2. Negative binomial results of main effects
Because we are presenting the results of numerous negative binomi-
al regressions, we reduced the relevant estimates into a Forest plot of ef-
fect sizes. The Forest plot is presented in Fig. 2 and shows the negative
binomial coefficient along with 95% confidence intervals. The baseline
Wave 3 model represents the bivariate association between political
ideology and criminal behavior. The effect was statistically significant
(b= 0.31). In the next equation we controlled for sex, age, years of ed-
ucation, and race. The addition of these controls increased slightly the
effect of political ideology on crime (b= 0.35). In the third equation
we introduced a control for self-reported criminal conduct measured
at Wave 2. Even with prior misbehavior modelled, the effect of political
ideology remained statistically significant and positive (b= 0.29).
We repeated these analyses using data from Wave 4. The bivariate
association between political ideology and criminal conduct at Wave 4
was statistically significant (b= 0.34) and similar in magnitude to the
estimate produced at Wave 3. Similarly, when controls were introduced
for sex, age, years of education, and race, the parameter estimate for po-
litical ideology increased slightly (b= 0.43). Finally, controlling for self-
reportedcriminal behavior at Wave 3 reduced the effect associated with
political ideology (b= 0.25) but did not render it non-significant.
3.3. Negative binomial subgroup results
Prior research shows that political ideology varies bysex and by race,
with males and whites on average expressing more conservative views
than females and minorities. We test whether political ideology
remained predictive of criminal involvement at Waves 3 and 4 within
these groups. Our negative binomial regression equations included
the demographic control variables and the prior measure of criminal
behavior. Results are graphically depicted in Fig. 3.
Sex differences were present in Wave 3. Political ideology predicted
involvement in crime for both males (b=0.17)andfemales(b=0.47).
The estimated coefficient for females was over twice as large compared
to males. Also in Wave 3, only the coefficient for whites reached statis-
tical significance (b= 0.33). The effect of political ideology on crime
within Hispanics and blacks was null. At Wave 4 the effect of political
ideology within males dropped out of significance, but the effect for fe-
males remained significant and substantive (b= 0.39). Political ideolo-
gy was again significantly associated with criminal behavior within
whites (b= 0.35), but not within Hispanics and blacks.
4. Discussion
Using a large dataset with detailed measures of criminal involve-
ment we found consistent evidence that individuals self-identified as
politically liberal also self-reported more involvement in crime cross-
sectionally and prospectively. The relationship between political ideolo-
gy and criminal conduct was linear: very conservative individuals re-
ported the lowest levels of criminal participation and very liberal
individuals reported the highest levels. The relationship withstood con-
trols for demographic factors connected to criminal behavior and to po-
litical ideology and, more importantly, the relationship withstood
controls for prior criminal behavior. Within group analyses also re-
vealed significant associations between political liberalism and criminal
conduct within whites, within males, and within females. The
Fig. 1. Estimated standardized scores on criminal involvement wave 3 and 4 by political ideology.
3J.P. Wright et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Wright, J.P., et al., Political ideology predicts involvement in crime, Personality and Individual Differences (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
standardized difference in criminal participation between very conser-
vative and very liberal individuals approached 1 standard deviation.
Nonetheless, we caution against assuming a causal relationship be-
tween liberal political ideology and criminal conduct for two reasons.
First, since political ideology reflects differences in a host of personality,
moral, and behavioral preferences it is likely that these factors will be
more proximately connected to criminal behavior. Variation in self-
control (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Vaughn, DeLisi, Beaver, Wright, &
Howard, 2007), openness to experience (Carney et al., 2008), conscien-
tiousness (Alford et al., 2008), and tolerance of criminal lifestyles are
likely important traits that distinguish liberals from conservatives, over-
all, and are likely factors that may account for the ideology-crime rela-
tionship specifically. Moreover, a large body of research implicates
cognitive processes associated with “criminal thinking errors”in crime
Fig. 2. Forest plot of negative binomial results.
Fig. 3. Forest plot of sub-group regression results.
4J.P. Wright et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Wright, J.P., et al., Political ideology predicts involvement in crime, Personality and Individual Differences (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
causation (Gonsalves, Scalora, & Huss, 2009; Walters, 2002). Certain
cognitive errors, such as entitlement thinking and victim-stance, may
correlate with political liberalism. The results of the within race and
sex analyses suggest these undefined characteristics may be of greater
salience to certain groups and of less salience to other groups. Future re-
search should include detailed psychological assessments and should
analyze sex and racial group differences.
Second, an individual's self-placement into categories of political lib-
eralism may reflect pre-existing experiences with criminal behavior not
entirely captured by our statistical controls. Antisocial individuals may
equate liberalism with nonjudgmental views, with leniency towards
criminal conduct, and with a series of psychological rationalizations
that justify their misbehavior. Although speculative, individuals in-
volved in crime may view liberalism as an ideology that accommodates
their antisocial behavior or, similarly, as an ideology that embraces their
global and unique concerns.
While it is important to understand why liberal self-classification is
positively associated with criminal behavior, it is equally important to
understand why political conservatism is associated with reduced crim-
inal behavior and whether conservatism is associated with other antiso-
cial behaviors not measured. There is apparent scholarly agreementthat
conservatives more strongly value social order, respect for authority,
and social conformity and that conservatives are more religious, more
conscientious, and demonstrate higher levels of self-control (Graham
&Haidt,2010). These traits and values likely influence lifestyle choices
in ways that better insulate conservatives against criminal behavior.
Moreover, conservative narratives about “free will,”personal responsi-
bility, andmorality may gel into cognitive scripts that condemn criminal
conduct as immoral and worthy of social sanctions.
Other factors may also explain these differences. Criminologistshave
known for decades that delinquent and criminal peer networks are
highly homogenous. In a similar way, research demonstrates that indi-
viduals' social networks reflect substantial ideological and political
homophily (Huckfeldt, Plutzer, & Sprague, 1993; Lazer, Rubineau,
Chetkovich, Katz, & Neblo, 2010). “Political homophily,”notes
Boutyline & Willer (2016,p.2),“creates dense clusters of within
group-ties, which prior work shows reinforce behavioral norms and in-
crease social pressure to take part in costly or risky activities.”Similarly,
Lazer et al. (2010) found that ideologically homogenous networks cre-
ated strong incentives for individual conformity and that conformity
was the outgrowth of social ties to individuals in the network. Social
ties embed individuals in exchange relationships where violations of
behavioral expectations and trust can jeopardize attachments and
group standing. However, much depends on the behavioral expecta-
tions of the group. Anarchists and evangelical Christians likely form rel-
atively homogenous groups, yet the behavioral expectations of each
group vary considerably. As research progresses in this area it may be
beneficial to more completely examine how political ideology influ-
ences peer group construction and maintenance and, similarly, how po-
litically homogenous groups influence the behaviors, including the
criminal behaviors, of their members.
Overall, our study joins a growing stream of empirical assessments
that document differences between liberals and conservatives. Collec-
tively, these studiesshow the potent yet often unexamined role political
ideology plays in everyday life. Political ideology represents more than
disparate views on the proper role of government and adherence to re-
fined political theories. Ideology reflects an assortment of correlated be-
liefs and narratives about behavior that are internalized by individuals.
These narratives likely impact individual choices, making some choices
more likely and other choices less likely. Criminal behavior may also re-
flect choices rooted in ideological narratives—narratives that promote
or reduce the occurrence of crime.
Lastly, much has been written lately on the academic biases of
scholars and how these biases converge to negatively portray conserva-
tives (Ludeke & Rasmussen, 2016). In particular, Haidt (2012) and his
colleagues have argued that the substantive liberal-conservative
disparities found in most social and behavioral sciences leads to distor-
tions in the research process and to distortions in the interpretation of
research findings (Duarte et al., 2014). These distortions affect not
only what is studied but also create conditions where other research
questions go unanswered. The connection between political ideology
and criminal conduct appears to be a reasonable example of a question
not studied.
References
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., Hibbing, J. R., Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. a., Dawes, C. T., ... Bash, E.
(2008). Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later. The
American Politi cal Science Review,102(2), 233–248, http://doi.org/10.1017 /
CBO9781107415324.004
Amodio, D.M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlatesof lib-
eralismand conservatism. Nature Neuroscience,10(10), 1246–1247, http://doi.org/10.
1038/nn1979
Barnes, J. C., & Boutwell, B. B.(2012). On the relationship of past to future involvement in
crime and delinquency: A behavior genetic analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice,40(1),
94–102.
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2016). The social structure of political echo chambers: Varia-
tion inideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology.http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/pops.12337.
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and
conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave be-
hind. Political Psychology,29(6), 807–840, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.
00668.x
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Krueger, R. F., & Schmutte, P. S.
(1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime rela-
tionship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology,43(1), 133–176.
Caspi, A.,Begg, D., Dickson, N.,Harrington, H., Langley, J., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1997).
Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: Evidence
from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(5), 1052.
Clarkson, J. J., Chambers, J. R., Hirt, E. R., Otto, A. S., Kardes, F. R., & Leone, C. (2015). The
self-control consequences of political ideology. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences,112(27), 8250–8253.
Coyne, M. A., & Wright, J. P. (2014). Th e stability of self-control across childhood.
Personality and Individual Differences,69,144–149.
Crysel, L. C., Crosier, B. S., & Webster, G. D. (201 3). The dark triad and risk behavior.
Personality and Individual Diff erences,54(1), 35–40, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2012.07.029
De Neve, J. E. (2015). Personality, childhood experience, and political ideology. Political
Psychology,36(1), 55–73, http://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12075
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Political
diversity will improve social psychological science. The Behavioral and Brain
Sciences,1–54, http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430
Funk, C. L., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., ... Hibbing, J.
R. (2013). Genetic and environmental transmission of political orientations. Political
Psychology,34(6), 805–819, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00915.x
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A
10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,7(3), 199–216, http://
doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. a., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and
political attitudes: Relationships across issue domai ns and political contexts.
American Polit ical Science Revi ew,104(01), 111, http://d oi.org/10.1017/
S0003055410000031
Gonsalves, V. M., Scalora, M. J., & Huss, M. T. (2009). Prediction of recidivism using the
psychopathy checklist—Revised and the psychological inventory of criminal thinking
styles within a forensic sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior,36(7), 741–756, http://
doi.org/10.1177/0093854809335688
Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral com-
munities. Personality and Social Psychology Review,14(1), 140–150.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion.
New York: Pantheon.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral
intuitions that li berals may not recog nize. Social Justice Research,20(1), 98–11 6,
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Harris, K. M., Florey, F., Tabor, J., Bear man, P. S., Jones, J., & Udry, J. R. (2003). The
nationallongitudinal study of adolescent health: Research design. Retri eved from ,
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design
Hatemi, P. K., Gillespie, N. A., Eaves, L. J., Maher, B. S.,Webb, B. T., Heath, A. C., ... Martin, N.
G. (2011). A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes. The
Journal of Politics,73(01), 271–285, http://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610001015
Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities”(narcis-
sism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), big five personality factors, and ideology in
explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality,43(4), 686–690, http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005
Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative contexts of political behavior:
Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. The Journal of Politics,55(02), 365,
http://doi.org/10.2307/2132270
Johnson, J. A., Hogan, R., Zonderman, A. B., Callens, C., & Rogolsky, S. (1981). Moral judg-
ment, personality, and attitudes toward authority. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,40(2), 370–373, http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.370
5J.P. Wright et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Wright, J.P., et al., Political ideology predicts involvement in crime, Personality and Individual Differences (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
Johnson,B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent religious commit-
ment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of
Research in Crim e and Delinquency,38 (1), 22–44, http://doi.org/10.1177/
0022427801038001002
Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The dark triad and self-con-
trol. Personality and Individual Differences,49(6), 611–615, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2010.05.031
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009b). Political ideology: Its structure, functions,
and elective affinities. Annual Revi ew of Psychology,60 ,http://doi.org /10.1146/
annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
Jost, J. T.,Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Politicalconservatism as mo-
tivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin,129(3), 339–375, http://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C., & Thorisdottir, H. (2009a). Social and psychological bases of ideology
and system justification. ,http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97801953 20916.001.
0001.
Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personal-
ity, and political psychology. Perspe ctives on Psychological Science,3(2), 126–136,
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x
Kahan, D. M. (2007). The cognitively illiberal state. Stanford Law Review,60,115–154.
Kahan, D. M. (2012). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experi-
mental study. Judgment and Decision making,8,407–424.
Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with
brain structure in young adults. Current Biology: CB,21(8), 677–680, http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017
Kugler, M.,Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another lookat moral foundationstheory:
Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative
differences in “Moral”Intuitions? Social Justice Research,27(4), 413–431, http://doi.
org/10.1007/s11211-014-0223-5
Lazer, D.,Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C.,Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution ofnet-
works and political attitudes. Political Communication,27(3), 248–274, http://doi.org/
10.1080/10584609.2010.500187
Ludeke, S. G., & Rasmussen, S. H. R. (2016). Personality correlates of sociopolitical atti-
tudes in the big five and Eysenckian models. Personality and Individual Differences,
98,30–36, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.079
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to an-
tisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology,39(4), 765–798.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Jaffee, S. R., Kim-cohen, J., Karestan, C., Odgers, C. L., ... Viding,
E. (2010). NIH Public Access,49(1), 1–42, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.
01823.x.Research
Oxley, D. R.,Smith, K. B., Alford, J.R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., ... Hibbing, J. R.
(2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science (New York, N.Y.),
321(5896), 1667–1670, http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157627
Schreiber, D., Fonzo,G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P.
(2013). Red brain, blue brain: Evaluative processes differ in democrats and republi-
cans. PloS One,8(2), e52970, http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970
Settle,J.E.,Dawes,C.T.,&Fowler,J.H.(2009).Theheritabilityofpartisanattachment.Political
Research Quarterly,62(3), 601–613, http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908327607
Shook, N. J., & Clay, R. (2011). Valenceasymmetry in attitude formation:A correlate of po-
litical ideol ogy. Social Psychological and Personality Science,2(6), 650–655, http://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550611405219
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoret-
ical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society
for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.,12(3), 248–279.
Vaughn, M., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K., Wright, J., & Howard, M. (2007). Toward a psychopa-
thology of self-con trol theory: The importance of narcissistic traits. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law,25(1), 803–821.
Walters, G. D. (2002). The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles (PICTS): A
review and meta-analysis. Assessment,9(3), 278–291, http://doi.org/10.1177/
1073191102009003007
6J.P. Wright et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Wright, J.P., et al., Political ideology predicts involvement in crime, Personality and Individual Differences (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.062
