From Psych Today, Jan-Feb 2007:

 

Article entitled "The Ideological Animal" contains the following possibly over-simplified stereotypes:

 

Psych researchers at NYU, Harvard, and Texas reached these conclusions:

 

-Liberals messier than Conservatives

-Libs read more--and greater variety of--books  

-Libs more likely to be optimists (???)

-Cons more likely to be religious

-Libs like music and art more than Cons (who r more likley to like country music, TV, and talk radio)

 

Research done between 1969 and 1989 at Cal-Berkeley suggests these diffs are evident in childhood, but based this assertion on the following--I think at least somewhat counter-intuitive--findings.  "As kids, Libs more likely to develop close relationships with peers and to be rated by teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient.  People who were conservative by age 23 had been described by teachers as easily victimized and offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3."  The reason for this difference--the researchers hypothesized--"was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority" and found it in conservative politics. (NOTE: I THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE INTERESTING IMPLICATIONS FOR RECENT DISCUSSION ON GENERATIONAL ANALYSIS.)

 

A 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants done by profs at NYU, Maryland, and Berkeley concluded:

 

- Cons have greater desire to reach decisions quickly and stick to them, and less tolerance for ambiguity

- Cons are more conscientious (which includes neatness/orderliness, duty, and rule-following)

- Libs more open (which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity, and craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and lit)

- Those who think the world is highly dangerous place also more likely to be Cons, while Libs more likely to see reality as gray area and many sides to issues (hence Cons propensity to label Libs as flip-floppers, unprincipled, etc)

 

When this meta-analysis was used by the media to analyze Bush and Kerry in 04, George Will and the National Review derided it as the "Cons are Crazy" study and that it suffered from Lib bias, while the researchers claimed their study is rigorously empirical and therefore difficult to dismiss.  But they admitted that most research in the past has focused on shifts toward Con rather than Lib behavior--esp since 9/11--and that bias may creep into WHICH phenomena to study.  One researcher also admitted they look for variables that are unflattering, but contends there is nothing inherently good or bad about neatness v messiness or stability v variety, etc.

 

A 2004 study sought to explain why Bush's approval rating went from about 50% before 9/11 to 90% after.  They found that "when people were in a benign state of mind, they tended to oppose Bush and his Iraq policies.  But after being asked to think about either death or 9/11, they tended to favor him."  They also found that when the color-coded terror alert was raised, support for Bush increased significantly not only on security issues but also economic issues.

 

A U of AZ psych researcher concluded this could be explained by "Terror Mgmt Theory (TMT)", which holds that heightened fear of death motivates people to defend their world views.  TMT predicts that images of the World Trade Center should make Libs more lib and Cons more con.  In the US, Conservatism seems to be the preferred ideology when people feel insecure, while people in China or other current or former Communist countries cling more tightly to communism when feeling insecure.

 

The NYU researcher mentioned above says thoughts of death may make people more conservative in both capitalist as well as communistic societies because they want to believe the world is just and fair, and that the existing social order is valid rather than in need of change.  Both capitalist and Communist theory offer more certain explanations about right v wrong, good v evil, us v them, etc and both emphasize tradition and authority--especially when under real or perceived threats.

 

To test this theory, BOTH LIBS and CONS WHO WERE ASKED TO THINK ABOUT DEATH WERE ALL MORE CONSERVATIVE ON ISSUES LIKE IMMIGRATION, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THAN THOSE WHO WERE ASKED TO THINK ONLY ABOUT PAIN (ALTHOUGH THE DIFFERENCE WAS RELATIVELY SMALL).  So thinking about death seems to make everyone more conservative--at least temporarily.  The researchers concluded much of Bush's former support might have been due to both real threats in the world as well as some manufactured as part of a political strategy which may very will swing elections.  This prompted the author to ask "If we are so suggestible that thoughts of death make us uncomfortable defaming the flag and compel us to sit farther away from foreigners, is there any way we can overcome our easily manipulated fears and become the informed and rational thinkers democracy needs?

 

For example, most lifelong Libs did NOT go through outright conversion conservatism after 9/11, but many did crave a strong leader who could punish or avenge.  This suggests without 9/11, Kerry might have won in 04.  However, studies also have indicated that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home, and those who engage people outside of their own social class are less likely to stereotype and be more tolerant of differences.  More edu also seems to increase liberalism--to a point.  Not surprisingly, graduate biz students become more conservative, as do docs and attys as they become more established in their careers.  So these factors as well as fear can fuel conversion to conservatism, suggesting that Churchill's famous quote still may hold true ("If you are not a Lib when you're 25, you have no heart; and if you are not a conservative when you are 35, you have no brain.").  But there are also high-profile examples of adult conversions from Con to Lib (ex-Con journalistic "hit man" David Brock and Arianna Huffington) as well as Lib to Con (Ronald Reagan and journalists David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens).

 

So to test the strength of fear relative to other factors in determining Lib v Con points of view, two groups were asked to think about death and then give opinions about pro-American and anti-American authors.  As expected, they were more pro after thinking about death.  But this experiment was then repeated, this time asking one group to make "gut-level" responses, while the other group was instructed to be as "rational" as possible.  The author describes the results as "astonishing."  In the rational group, the impact of thoughts of death were ENTIRELY eliminated.  Preliminary research also suggests that reminding people that our similarities outweigh our differences--aka the "Common Humanity Prime"--has the same effect. 

 

The author--Jay Dixit--concludes, "the rational analytic mode takes more effort and attention, but the effects of psychological terror on political decision-making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally."  I hope he is right... I mean correct.