Why do we have different, even opposing, political orientations?
After I wrote my last diary, I decided to dig deeper for answers to that question. Different political orientations lead to different social and political expectations. Different expectations, in turn, lead to social and political conflict. Researching the answer led me further into the fields of psychology and neuroscience. I am neither a psychologist nor a neuroscientist. However, as a social scientist, I feel compelled to consider discoveries in other disciplines which could help to explain social behavior, especially our political behavior. Chris Mooney addressed many such discoveries in his book titled "The Republican Brain," but in this diary I want to present some additional discoveries, along with ideas I derived from them.
Political Scientist John T. Jost et al. tell us that the division of political opinions along a "left"-"right" continuum began in France in the late 1700's, "when supporters of the status quo sat on the right side of the French Assembly hall and its opponents sat on the left." Jost et al. note that it is now common to substitute "Liberal" for "left," and "Conservative" for "right." The underlying differences still come down to two interrelated distinctions: "Liberals" advocate social change and reject inequality; "Conservatives" resist social change and accept inequality. [1]
What could account for these distinctions? Carney, Jost et al. answer that there is "consistent and converging evidence" that Liberals and Conservatives have significant personality differences. According to Jost et al., the evidence from 88 studies conducted in 12 countries ultimately supports Psychologist Glenn D. Wilson's theory, that the Conservative personality is significantly associated with a "generalized susceptibility to experiencing threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty." [2]
Political Scientist Peter K. Hatemi and his collaborators call this a "fear disposition." I think it's more accurate to call it a "Defensive" disposition. Glenn D. Wilson specifically asserts (p. 261) that, "conservative attitudes serve a defensive function:" in the face of uncertainty, Conservative attitudes confer security by simplifying, ordering and controlling experience. Jost et al. conclude that Conservative resistance to change and acceptance of inequality are ultimately rooted "in psychological attempts to manage uncertainty and fear." Social change presents uncertainty, which creates anxiety in Conservatives. Conservatives react by resisting social change and defending the status quo. Social equality presents uncertainty with regard to status. To avoid status anxiety, Conservatives resist egalitarianism and defend inequality. Moreover, the status quo usually includes inequality, so defending the status quo usually includes defending inequality on that basis, as well.
I think you can see how this Defensive disposition informs Conservative attitudes with regard to immigration, religion, race, gender, Obamacare and other contemporary political issues. Changes to the status quo create uncertainty, uncertainty creates anxiety, and Conservatives react by reflexively defending the status quo ante.
Liberals also experience anxiety under conditions of uncertainty, but Liberals tend to respond by engaging thought processes which are said to "correct" their initial reactions. Presumably this is the reason why Jost et al. have found Liberals to be strongly associated with Openness to Experience and traits related to it: sensation-seeking, novelty-seeking, curiosity, creativity, and rebelliousness. It would also explain why Liberals advocate for social change and challenge inequality: through cognitive intervention, Liberals experience less uncertainty anxiety than Conservatives. In fact, Jost et al. note evidence of Liberals becoming more Conservative under conditions which are highly threatening or their thinking is impaired. [3][4] Although these scholars don't use the term, all of this suggests to me that Liberals generally have a more "Open" disposition than Conservatives. Due to their Defensive disposition, Conservatives are more "Closed" psychologically.
Neuroscience is providing insights into what lies behind these personality differences. Attention is currently focusing on two brain structures, the Anterior Cingulate Cortex ["ACC"] and the amygdala. The human brain has two amygdala, one on the left side and one on the right. To avoid copyright concerns, I've made a really crude and simplified drawing of these two structures, based on several academic depictions:
Ryota Kanai et al. conducted MRI brain scans of 90 individuals who self-reported their political attitudes (“very liberal” to “very conservative”). They found that "increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex was significantly associated with liberalism," and that "increased gray matter volume in the right amygdala was significantly associated with conservatism." They did a replication study with 28 more subjects and obtained similar results. They noted that one function of the amygdala concerns the processing of fear, and people with large amygdala have been found to be more sensitive to fear. On the other hand, one function of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty. Kanai et al. therefore cautiously hypothesized that people with larger amygdala would be more inclined to conservative views, and people with larger ACCs, having "a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts," would "accept more liberal views." Overall, Kanai et al. believed that these results were "consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty."
Amodio et al. conducted a similar study using electroencephalographs and found that, when presented with conflicting stimuli, "liberalism (versus conservatism) was associated with significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" in the ACC.
In The Neuroscience of Fair Play, Donald W. Pfaff provides numerous examples of how genes affect brain structure and chemistry, including those relating to fear and ability to love. Nancy L. Segal provides further evidence of the influence of genes, based on twin studies and adoption studies, in her book, Entwined Lives. Dr. Segal estimates (p. 70) that "Approximately 20-50% of individual differences in personality are genetically based."
All of the preceding leads me to conclude that one's political orientation is significantly related to one's personality disposition, and one's personality disposition is significantly related to one's brain structure. And one's brain structure is significantly related to one's genes. In the context of a democracy, this means that citizens -- to a significant degree -- vote on the basis of their personality, and their personality developed to some extent on the basis of their genetic makeup. Why do we have genetic makeups associated with different, even opposing, political orientations? I'm guessing it's because Open, Defensive, and Ambivalent dispositions have all provided viable survival responses in human history. I will argue, however, that current social conditions recommend a more Open disposition, due to the world's increasing population density, economic integration and global issues.
Having said all of that, Andrea Kuszewski reminds me that "Not everyone fits into little personality boxes." Kuszewski complains that a model like this "...doesn’t account for moderates, nor does it take into account extreme fanatics of both wings...." In this regard, I note that Markus Kemmelmeier set out to test this idea that people "at both ends of the political spectrum" were different from "those in the political mainstream." His research, involving 93 German students, led him to conclude that "Need for Closure" [closed-mindedness] "increased with the right-wing orientation of the party" preferred by the subject, and the data "support the original hypothesis of Adorno et al. (1950) [The Authoritarian Personality] of a linear association between cognitive functioning and political orientation. So we're probably talking about a linear continuum.
Another observation by Kuszewski is that "the brain is plastic." She is referring to our "brain's ability to change and adapt" in response to new conditions, experiences and information. Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, a contributor to Are We Born Racist?, specifically identifies ways which he says reseach has found to be effective in reducing prejudices [pp. 30 - 32]. Examples include:
⦁ developing cross-group relationships;
⦁ actions by authorities and institutions which enable cross-group contact;
⦁ "social events designed to bring groups into contact with each other" (under conditions where they have equal status); and even
⦁ teaching individuals about how the brain grows and changes.
Of course, people who have predominantly Defensive dispositions will purposely avoid novel conditions, experiences and information, so as to control and avoid uncertainty anxiety. But that still leaves a lot of citizens with more Open dispositions who may be able to adapt and change their minds on a host of social issues.
The List of Caveats:
- I am a Liberal and admit to that bias.
- I have not presented all of the theories which exist on these topics.
- All findings and hypotheses are based on estimates of likelihood.
- Association is not proof of causality.
- The source and direction of causality is debatable.
- Further investigation is always required.
(originally published March 9, 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment