Researchers help define what makes a political conservative (Mega-Barf Alert!)

UC Berkeley ^ | 7/22/02 | Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations

[TheAngryClam]

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

- Fear and aggression

- Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

- Uncertainty avoidance

- Need for cognitive closure

- Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

[risk]

>>>> Democrats are Nazis. Hitler is completely opposite of Reagan and Rush.

I understand how you have come to the point where you feel this way. It is wrong not to correctly identify the dangers many Democrats are exposing to our republic. But we also risk being mislabeled when we bring up the "Nazi" word. For those of us who have been on the Internet since before it was open to the general public, we're very familiar with the tendency for all arguments to converge on the mutual accusations of Nazism. It's called http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law and it's surprising how often it holds true. However, I know good Democrats (although I still disagree with some of their ideas). I would rather try to win them over without calling them names. Godwin's law is why I refuse to call Democrats Nazis. It only makes it easier for them to accuse me of running out of logical arguments to their points of view, and that will just not happen!

But the gun grabbers are especially appropriate to identify as totalitarian enablers or outright proponents of totalitarianism. Those who wish to take our human right to self defense and our right to defend our Constitution as private citizens are either misled or are intentionally misleading other Americans. I am willing to grant them incompetence and cowardliness, but there is little way we can discern between those who want to make the world safe for the children and those who want to lay the groundwork for the downfall of our republic. In either case, the only safety for all of our future children is in a totally free republic protected by citizens and the military alike from enemies foriegn and domestic. Our republic will fall shortly after guns are successfully banned.

Yes, the Nazi label is problematic. Sometimes vile and chilling names come to our lips when the danger to the Republic from the left is otherwise indescribable.

[longtermmemmory]

Conserving Individual rights never entered their dinosaur brains.

Liberals are nothing more than leftis socialist regressives who seek a return to aristocratic elitism.

This is proof taxpayers need to defund these universities.

[Travis McGee]

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

Uh-huh.

[Susannah]

Interesting link on Godwin's Law!

I've been called a Nazi on other forums. And I don't remember how many times "McCarthyism" or "Stockholm Syndrome" has come up in thread discussions.

[Susannah]

Hopefully you've seen the right-wing site of UC Berkeley. There's a number of good articles and I've cruised some of their discussion forum.

http://www.calpatriot.org

[TheAngryClam]

I wrote for them while I was an undergrad.

[risk]

I just have one question for the "unbelievers," the ones who doubt the uniqueness and innovativeness of the American Revolution, and what it has meant to humanity:

Would there ever be a government and a Constitution (founding document) for which they would give their lives? In other words, would no form of government ever meet their requirements for "good beyond all measure of doubt?"

If they deny that such a social contract, such a political ideal or body could ever exist, then I dismiss them as humans without a purpose, who are unwilling to strive for something better, beyond themselves.

And if America doesn't meet their requirements, then I dismiss them as historical revisionists who refuse to see how incredible the American revolution has been in terms of human progress. Their very ability to postulate as to why patriotic Americans might be pathological is preposterous.

And finally, if they argue that America can not be improved to meet their ideals, then I dismiss them as pessimists who can't see the forest for the trees. The founding fathers envisioned constant change, constant improvement. That's what we as citizens are here to accomplish. If they're not interested in making this a better place, then perhaps France or Germany might meet their needs. The exit door is always open, unlike the former Soviet Union's.

If not this nation, then what other? If not this Constitution, then which? The time is now to stand up and be counted as citizens of the greatest nation ever in the history of human beings.

Of course there is room for debate and cognitive dissonance here. This is America, afterall. We thrive on arguments and fiery ideals. Even in the ivory towers.

[truth_seeker]

WTF are the:

"Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material...?"

I guess that the "new math" I studied failed to prepare me for the age of "meta-analytic calculations."

To the authors, it is probably "below them" to have to expalin, in plain English, what these formulae might be.

The ommission of a similar analysis of "liberalism" convinces me this is NOT serious research.

[Impy]

Hey this is an outra.... oh it's from Berkeley, never mind. :-p

Hey bozos, there is plenty we want to change. For starters, taking away all your public funding.

[Joe Brower]

I don't call Demos "Nazis", although it sure is tempting sometimes $;-). They do exhibit fascist tendencies quite often, something that seems to be increasing as time goes on, but I prefer the term "Marxists", or "Stalinists".

They are all much more like than unlike...

[Travis McGee]

I think they are closet Stalinists or Leninists.

I look at the universities to see what kind of "freedom" they would permit if they held total national power.

Only the freedom to agree with them.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

seeing and stating things in black and white

I don't see things as black and white, but as right and wrong. Clymers!

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Someone around here has a tagline that says something about "taking crazy pills."

[DuncanWaring]

If I recall correctly, this "American Psychological Association" has also in the past published papers that said:
1. The presence of a father in the household is harmful because they might spend money on tobacco and booze.
2. Sex between adults and children isn't necessarily bad.

[pollwatcher]

"BERKELEY" Doesn't the first word in the by-line say it all? They were VERY selective about how "conservatism" was defined - leaving out "liberty" for instance. I wonder how they couldn't find "a host of information available" about liberalism out there - "forest for the trees," maybe?

I think that the liberal tendency to control and mold all actions, down to the very thought process, would make interesting study. Not to mention the total blindness and resistance to natural order, abilities and hierarchies. And what could be more dogmatic than radical egalitarianism, feminism, environmentalism and animal rightism?

What is really sad is that this "research" will get a lot of play in some media outlet, and will provide more soothing balm to those spend too much time in the sun out in their sandboxes.

[irv]

To the authors, it is probably "below them" to have to expalin, in plain English, what these formulae might be.

It doesn't matter what "calculations" were done. What matters is that they did a meta-study. That's pseudo-science code for "We were too lazy to do any real research, so we just read other people's stuff and interpreted it the way we wanted."

It's a growing phenomenon in the social "sciences."

[AnnaZ]

I finally got a chance to read this. Un-be-lievable. I will shred this on Thursday's show and savor every moment of it.

 

(Your alma mater?! Oy vey! ;^)