Glenn Wilson PhD, Gresham College, London

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF POLITICS

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

Theodor Adorno et al (1950) described a fascist-prone individual as militaristic, conventional and anti-hedonistic, submissive to higher authority and punitive toward those below.

A harsh upbringing was held to cause repressed hostility to the parents, emerging as ethnic prejudice and cruelty towards weaker persons.

EYSENCK’S TWO-FACTOR THEORYUsing factor analysis, Eysenck (1954) found two independent dimensions of ideology (Radicalism and Toughmindedness). Communists and Fascists were shown to share aggressive/dogmatic tendencies.

CONSTITUTIONAL IDEOLOGYWilson (1973) presented evidence that social and political attitudes were organised around a constellation called conservatism (vs liberalism). This was theorised to be an inborn personality trait reflecting fear of uncertainty.

The C-Scale used a “catch-phrase” format to tap immediate emotional reactions to familiar issues like death penalty, evolution, fluoridation, immigration and abortion.

FEAR OF UNCERTAINTYJost (2006) presents data confirming the link between conservatism and various traits suggesting fear of uncertainty.

MUSIC, ART & HUMOUR PREFERENCESConfirmation that conservatism reflects management of uncertainty and threat is seen in studies of music, art and humour preferences.

1. Conservatives prefer music that is familiar and predictable.

2. Conservatives dislike complex and abstract forms of art.

3. Liberals prefer sexual and aggressive cartoons; conservatives like “safe” jokes that provide “incongruity resolution” (the feeling of “closure”). (Wilson, 1990)

PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS TO THREAT

Physiological fear responses to threatening stimuli are greater in those who are “socially protective” (conservative) on issues such as Bible truth, the death penalty, patriotism, gun control, pornography and premarital sex.

This relationship was seen in both amplitude of startle reflex to sudden loud noises and increases in skin conductance to threatening visual stimuli such as spiders and open wounds (Oxley et al, 2008).

“DIRTY LIBERALS”

Disgust sensitivity (squeamishness) goes with conservatism. This applies across various countries and is strongest with respect to concerns about contagious disease (Inbar et al, 2011).

Raising awareness of hygiene concerns (e.g., reminders about hand-washing) shifts attitudes in a conservative direction (Helzer & Pizarro, 2011).

LIBERAL FLEXIBILITYAmodio et al (2007) observed event-related potentials in the anterior cingulate gyrus using a “go/no-go” paradigm. Results suggested greater sensitivity in liberals to cues for altering a habitual response pattern that is no longer useful.

POLITICS ON THE BRAIN

Using structural MRI, Kanai et al (2011) found that self-rated “liberals” had more gray matter in the cingulate gyrus (associated with self-regulatory conflict monitoring) .

Conservatives had a larger right amygdala (fear processing area in the mid-brain).

HERITABILITY OF ATTITUDES

Although it is widely supposed that attitudes are learned, there is a substantial contribution from genetics – much stronger than the shared family (socialisation) effect.This accounts for the fact that some children follow the parental line while others do not.(Alford et al, 2005)More heritable items evoke “gut reactions”, e.g., faster responses and greater resistance to change.(Tesser, 1993).

(From Alford et al, 2005)

A GENE FOR LIBERALISM

Settle et al (2010) report that the 7R variant of the dopamine receptor gene DRD4 (previously associated with novelty-seeking) interacts with number of friends to predict liberalism. In adolescents with the gene, the more friends the more liberal. For those with no gene there is no association.

PERSONALITY AND IDEOLOGYOpenness to experience predicts liberal ideology; Conscientiousness goes with conservatism (US sample, N = 14,672; De Neve, 2011)

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE & IDEOLOGYChildhood trauma interacts with Openness in predicting ideology (De Neve, 2011).

WHICH IS BETTER?

Although they may regard each other as irrational, liberals and conservatives are about as intelligent as each other (a trait which both hold in high regard). Neither is there any difference in neuroticism, despite the threat/disgust sensitivity of conservatives.

(Wordsum is a 10-word vocabulary test that correlates .71 with IQ)

COMPASSIONATE LIBERALS, DUTIFUL CONSERVATIVES

Political leanings depend much on personality and values. Liberals are open and compassionate, conservatives diligent and responsible. People have much the same “motivational architecture", and share most values, but priorities differ from person to person (Hirsh et al, 2010).

The stable variation in these motivational systems implies that, in evolutionary terms, each has costs and benefits and both are important to an effective balance in society.

THE ALF GARNETT EFFECTParty affiliation has complex determinants. Generally, right-wing parties favour limited redistribution of wealth and hence gain support from the well-off.However, fear of uncertainty may lead some to seek system stability, continuity, and “strong leadership”, tilting them toward support for parties that appear counter to their class interests.

THE IRON FIST

Eysenck found a U-shaped distribution of political parties in relation to his two main factors of ideology.

The more extreme a dictator, either to the left or right, the more suppression is needed to keep people under control. Hence their characteristic denial of personal freedoms and brutal crushing of dissent.

THE MIND OF A DICTATOR

Dictators share certain personality traits:

1. Hunger for power – intense drive for domination.

2. Psychopathy – charismatic but compassionless (often sadistic).

3. Narcissism – vanity, self-absorption, sense of entitlement.

4. Paranoia – grandiosity, fear of plots (real and imagined).

5. Sex drive – many wives and children, bunga-bunga.

THE STANFORD PRISON STUDY

Stanford psychologist Zimbardo (1971) showed how ordinary people could be corrupted by power. Students were assigned as “guards” and “prisoners” in a makeshift prison. The guards became so abusive and the prisoners so passive that the experiment was stopped after 6 days.

“E” FOR EGOGalinsky et al (2006) and Van Cleef et al (2008) had subjects recall situations in which they had experienced power; others recalled situations in which they were powerless. Those primed for power became less sensitive to the feelings of others and more self-oriented. “High-power” subjects were 3x more likely than low-power subjects to draw an E on their forehead that reads from the inside, suggesting they were less able to see things from the viewpoint of others.

ILLUSORY CONTROLPower “goes to the head”. People experimentally empowered (e.g., assigned a managerial role) behave as though they can influence chance events. Offered a reward for predicting the outcome of a dice throw, those given a sense of power were more likely to opt to roll the dice themselves (Fast et al, 2009).

This illusion of control may have certain benefits in terms of a leader’s self-confidence but can lead to poor choices. It may be one of the reasons power often leads to its own demise.

POWER DEHUMANISES

In a series of studies, Lammers & Stapel (2011) demonstrated the dehumanising effect of power:

1. Subjects who felt powerful rated inhabitants of a fictional South American country (Aurelia) as less civilised/more childish.

2. Those primed to feel more powerful were more likely to back a plan to clear Aurelians from slums against their will.

3. Subjects role-playing a senior surgeon (vs junior or nurse) opted for more painful but effective treatments.

THE PARADOX OF POWERKeltner (2010) argues that the qualities useful in gaining power (social intelligence, charm and empathy) tend to diminish once power has been achieved. Those in power become progressively self-absorbed and insensitive to the feelings of others (narcissistic & psychopathic).This further explains the convergence of dictators of the left and right and is an effect we should guard against.