{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02231404958677686, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003305785123966942, 'mean_word_length': 6.040697674418604, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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 a threat or being threatened. To incorporate differences in interpretations into quantitative models, I propose the construct of value-instantiating beliefs, or perceived consequences of actions for basic human values. I hypothesize that these 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 behaviours. Beliefs about consequences of the behaviours differed with political affiliation: for example, liberals saw voting for Trump in light of negative consequences for universalistic values, while conservatives stressed positive consequences for self-direction and security. The moderation hypothesis was confirmed. Including value-instantiating beliefs in the models significantly improved the predictions of attitudes towards and intentions to perform the behaviours.