Posted on 07/22/2003 6:48:32 PM PDT by Fred
Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003
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."
Now the APA is trying to suggest that Conservatism is disorder? More proof that the APA has a liberal political agenda, reminiscent of their influence in making homosexuality NOT a disorder. Social construction through pseudo soft science.
YEP! Social experimentation vs. a society proven to work? I’m going with status quo.
YEP! Search the 80-year-old granny and pass on the Saudi national when screening airline passengers because it’s politically correct to turn a blind eye to race. Liberalism is a political system that lacks common sense.
Liberal propagandic B-U-N-K BUNK!
Oh, well. Thanks alot.
They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.
Oh, yeah, RIGHT!!!
"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.
Oh, I see. Liberals have the "valued characteristics". The rest of the world....
Giving chosen behavior special rights and advantages is Fascism, where’s their support for incest, bestiality and consensual pedophilia? Hypocrites ALL!
The APA has been conducting outcome-based research for years, it’s part of their hidden liberal political agenda to change society. The soft sciences and even the AMA are political arms of Liberalism; this attack on Conservatism is just more proof.
Kahonek, you must be so proud.
C'mon. This is from The Onion.
Having said that, let's get to this um.....thesis's points.
* Fear and aggression
Partially right. I don't fear anything or anyone. I want to kill every Ba'athist, Islamist, and Marxist I can find for they're the enemies of my country. I want to execute murderers and rapists because I don't want them to harm another innocent person. Finally, I'm a mean-spirited a$$hole when debating liberal, statist, and pacifist trash because I value my liberty, which two types of trash want to take from me and the latter type wants me to lie down and lose in the name of appeasement. Call it aggressive if you want, call it intense if you like. I'm just passionate when comes to defending the people and the country I love and the values I hold dear.
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
WTF????!!!! I've forgotten what the inside of a church looks like. Reason is the basis of every position I take, not emotion or so-called dogmatism. As for "intolerance of ambiguity", these A-holes at Berkley need to excuse the f**k out of me if I believe in a clearly defined right and wrong. My PC indoctrination at the publik schools didn't quite take.
* Uncertainty avoidance
Again, it all goes back to a clearly defined belief in right and wrong. Something a little socialist prick in Berkley or anywhere else in the Islamic People's Democratik Republik of Kalifornistan doesn't know anything about.
* Need for cognitive closure
So I'm close-minded if I think the theft of 50% of a person's income is wrong? So I'm closed-minded if I think NAMBLA are a bunch of perverted old guys? Again, it goes back to a clearly defined belief in right and wrong.
* Terror management
Yeah I believe in terror management. When a terrorist pops out their ugly jihadist head, I'll be there to put a bullet in it.
Basically, this idiot's point is you're a fascist if you're not a surrender monkey, if you believe in right and wrong, and you actually believe in something other than the power of the Almighty government. Just because the idiots at Berkley want to be a part of Aztlan or the Islamic States of America doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and let them have what they want. This person also shows they don't what a fascist is.
Fascism is just another form of socialism. Fascists allow private property ownership, but will dictate what you can do with that property. For a good example of fascism in America, just read the Democratic Party platform.
One final thing about Kalifornia, I would like to see a comparison of the economies of Kalifornia and North Korea. I think North Korea has more a capitalist economy than Kalifornia.
(Rant over....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.