Abstract

Lakoff's (2002) 'nation-as-family' metaphor suggests that conservatism and liberalism in the United States are based respectively on two different sets of morality, i.e., "strict father" morality and "nurturant parents" morality. He argues that values associated with respective metaphors and political principles derived from them tend to determine certain political attitudes and policy endorsement. Using the priming technique, this study attempted to examine whether "strict father" and "nurturant parents" morality are indeed what underlie very different positions conservatives and liberals take towards people in need. The results supported the Lakoff's idea and demonstrated that, compared to priming "nurturant parents" morality, priming "strict father" morality actually led people to derogate character of those in need and to attribute more responsibility onto them for their economic predicament. This research leads us to reconsider what constitutes politically conservative and liberal attitudes and emphasizes the malleability of political attitudes.