Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Studies Reveal that Conservatism is Promoted When People Rely on ‘Low-Effort’ Thinking
Good news for conservatives as a compilation of four recent social psychology studies demonstrate that rather than necessarily being pathological, political conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking.
In the four studies conducted by Scott Eidelman, Christian S. Crandall, Jeffrey A. Goodman, and John C. Blanchar published by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, they concluded, “(P)olitical conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement.”
Ever wonder why conservatives can’t seem to understand that people are not always to blame for the circumstances they find themselves in? While personal responsibility sounds like it makes perfect sense initially, when you walk people through the various life circumstances that can render people temporarily dependent upon government help, it becomes clear that things are not so simple. These studies demonstrate the impact of correctional/effortful explanations on political ideology, “This analysis also suggests that some forms of political ideology may result from intentional and effortful correction. For example, Wänke and Wyer (1996) found that liberals scored higher than conservatives on the Attributional Complexity Scale (Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson, & Reeder, 1986), an indicator that the former generate more complex and detailed (if not more effortful) explanations for the behavior of others.”
We think that compassion and empathy are a fundamental part of liberal values, and we note at times that it takes being in that specific situation for conservatives to grasp why, for example, liberals support universal healthcare for all. There are many studies that address that take on things, but this study is specifically addressing whether or not having low-effort thinking will produce conservative thinking initially, and they showed that it does.
That would fall under blaming the person versus the situation. In some instances, it takes higher level effort thinking (correctional thinking) to consider the situational explanation. An example is considering why someone might be on government assistance. Conservative thinking will blame the person, liberal thinking will correct that initial impulse with a situation-based explanation. “Skitka and her colleagues (Skitka et al., 2002; Study 4) analyzed interviews conducted for the 1987 National Election Studies and found that liberals were more than twice as likely as conservatives to correct an initial “person” attribution with a “situation” explanation in response to a question about government assistance. These correlational findings suggest that some instances of ideology may result from correction processes, overriding and adjusting initial conservative responses. Our experimental studies provide evidence of causal direction.”
Whether that low-effort thinking comes from being busy, overwhelmed, or inebriated, the study shows that under conditions of what we could call cognitive impairment or limited time resulting in low-effort thinking, people are more conservative politically.
As for those centrists (or, come election time, undecided voters), your suspicions appear to be correct. “People with strong political views—left or right—show more cognitive ability than broadly defined centrists.” (Kemmelmeier, 2008)
These studies offer a contrast or different way of looking at previous studies, which have suggested that conservative thought is pathological, fear-based, and a result of relying upon low-effort thought. As they point out, “We argue that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism, not that conservatives rely on low-effort thought.”
Thus, they conclude, “Four studies support our assertion that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism… Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural.” (That’s natural as opposed to pathological, not natural as in right or correct.)
This, they think, explains perhaps conservative bias in American politics, “The psychological foundation from which ideology is derived may not be neutral. Without the means or motive to override an initial impulse that promotes conservative ideology, the political scales may be tipped toward the right of center and may provide a contributing explanation for what has been described as a conservative bias in American politics (e.g., Frank, 2004; Jost, 2006).”
I would argue that Americans are not conservative in actual beliefs (based in part on polls that show that Americans support socialism in action but revile the word), but rather as a result of deliberate linguistic framing, but that is another study for another day. This study focused on specifically on cognitive processes.
It would be easy to be snarky about studies like this, but in truth these studies are a general step up regarding the possible psychological/cognitive reasons for conservative thought. Prevailing thought based on many previous studies was that there is a psychological pathology inherent conservative thinking. But in these studies we are offered a more practical way to approach the divide, if rather tedious. We might try starting off our next “discussion” with a conservative with something along the lines of “Yes, that makes sense initially but it doesn’t account for x, y and z.”
Then again, if they’re drunk on tea, you probably won’t get far past the primitive thought process and it’s probably best to seek higher ground for ideological debate.
Study methods: “We tested these ideas in four studies. Study 1 was conducted in vivo at a local bar, with alcohol intoxication serving as a hindrance to effortful thinking; political attitudes of bar patrons were correlated with a measure of their blood alcohol content (BAC). In Study 2, we measured participants’ political attitudes under normal working conditions or cognitive load. In Study 3, we manipulated time pressure and measured the endorsement of terms related to liberal and conservative beliefs. We expected alcohol, load, and time pressure to interfere with effortful information processing, leaving participants to lean more heavily on thinking that was easy and efficient. In Study 4, we manipulated effortful processing directly by asking participants to consider political terms in a deliberate or cursory manner. In all studies, we expected low-effort thought to promote conservative ideology.”
The truth is catching up to Mitt Romney. The night before the second presidential debate, Anderson Co ...
There are many religious people who believe that their god controls every aspect of their lives, and for ...
David Barton seems to have discovered the scientific principle of testing your theories. He has actually d ...
The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology ...
An overview of 5 surveys, which Politifact never looked at by Chris Mooney shows that the fact checker g ...
Ron Millar
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 10:57 am
I have lived in U.S. since 1982 after living in 2 other countries U.K @N.Z. and the people in this land are completely brain washed about various things and I,ll probably get the response I usually get when I say this if not happy go home
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 11:00 am
Sarah, I love that science and not God explains conservatism’s particular derangement. It’s not much of a surprise that they don’t put enough effort into their thinking. In fact, it explains a lot.
Reynardine
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 11:06 am
Of course, this is linked with why reactionaries advocate little education, simplistic slogans, and major economic and psychological stress for the ewepeople, since under these circumstances, they can get them to endorse hierarchical, fascistic policies that are against their own interests. The study you cited explains the majority of right-wing *voters*, but right-wing demagogues are, by and large, Dark Triadists, a distinction noted by writers from Robert Lindner, to Rob Altemeyer, to John Dean.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 1:23 pm
It also explains conservative Christianity. Think about the age-old cry (noted in the second-century by the Pagan philosopher Celsus): “Do not ask questions; just believe.”
KatzKids
Nov. 22nd, 2012 at 5:40 am
Exactly, and it’s common with Christianity in general. My Mom was a big church goer, not evangelical at all. At a very young age I questioned many things I was being taught in Sunday School. I’ve always been extremely analytical & I just couldn’t twist my mind around the things being taught, especially the things which clearly contradicted other things.
I questioned, didn’t want to question, but felt my belief slipping away & tried as hard as I could to hold onto it. I asked my questions of many “Church authorities” including my Mom who could pull up a scripture from every book & a quote for every occasion. The only thing I accomplished was to make the Church authorities & Mom extremely uncomfortable & they had no answers for me, except that I had to take it on “Faith” that what was in the bible, & what was preached was true – without exception. Obviously that didn’t “take” with me.
Michael
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Ive long held this belief about conservatives. Its so blatantly obvious in every conversation I have with one…
Eg:
Me: I feel that the govt should guarantee healthcare as a right. If the government can criminalize suicide, it should likewise provide for a universal and affordable method of maintaining the general health of its population. A healthy population is a productive population, and to say that health should be a commodity that only a portion of the population can have access to, is ludicrous.
Them: Well the govt cant afford to give everyone free healthcare. Why should I pay for the lazy to go to the doctor? If they want healthcare they should work harder and get a better job and stop wasting their money on big screen tvs.
Me: Well it costs a fortune to pay the bill for the uninsured americans who go to the emergency room because they have no healthcare. Wouldnt it make sense that our emergency rooms would be more efficient and less packed if everyone had access to preventative care? And about “getting a better job”… you do realise that oklahoma is a “service based economy” right? How many restaurants, particularly fast food places, do you see in a given square mile? Id hazard to say that half the businesses in this state dont offer health insurance. If everyone that worked at mcdonalds or carls jr or wendys “got a better job”…who would flip your burgers? Dont they deserve cancer treatment if they get sick?
Then:….. ……. …….
See the thing is…. I was raided with Christian values…..
(end of conversation)
Yeah… Effortless thinking and a refusal to see reality, no matter how hard you shove it in their faces.
UncaJoe
Nov. 22nd, 2012 at 9:43 am
As another liberal Oklahoman, I find the same thing exists even within families. I had one grandfather that never worked more than a month or two at a time, lived on welfare most of his life and was an absolutely staunch Republican. He once bragged that at least he never raised a “Goddamn Democrat” (My father was as well as my uncle who even was elected county commissioner as a Dem.)
My other grandfather, who had to drop out of school in the 3rd grade to become “the man of the house” after his father’s death, worked at the same job for 30 plus years after serving in the US Navy during WWII. He once remarked to me when I had just reached voting age about Reagan, “I can’t understand how anyone that’s ever worked for a living could vote for a Republican.”
My conclusion was that many Repub’s are simply ignorant, under-educated, “I ain’t the problem” hypocrites.
I still hold that belief today.
Maranon
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 2:09 pm
One would be inclined to think that, after a group of people in a given region have been saved by a certain socialist government program, that group of people would know first hand the benefits of the intervention and support additional social programs for the rest of the Nation and other people.
The people from the Midwest, specially Kansa, OKLA and Texas, that had such rescue from the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression, created by the disruption of the grasslands by overplowing.
The conservative thinking of blaming the person for the situation, was clearly lifted from their shoulders.
It was FDR and the PWA that rescue these folks not long ago, yet their survival did not cultivate freer minds nor more tolerant people. they chose to thank god, rather than the federal government.
It is the bible belt that keeps the folks from thinking, feeding them easy solutions to complex issue, they have bought the idea of being sheep, and they behave as such. Baaah!
fedded-up
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Couple of issues with your argument there. Don’t get me wrong – I believe, as you apparently do, that the majority of people in these states need some massive re-education, but the reason you’ve cited doesn’t hold up very well.
(1) Overplowing did contribute mightily to the erosion of topsoil that was then deposited across several eastern states! BUT, the farmers of the area did not realize what harm they were causing then. It wasn’t until much later that scientists explained what happened and why, and FDR undertook the costly reclamation effort. So, you can’t really blame them for doing what their fathers, grandfathers, etc, etc, etc had done.
(2) Afterwards, the vast majority of plains farmers were gone. Their farms were repo’ed, they were forced to leave. The only ones that were able to stay were the very very lucky or the very very wealthy – and THEY were the ones who bought the repo’ed farms for pennies on the dollar – leading to the mega-farms and mega-produce industries we have today. Since they were already relatively wealthy from way back when, I’ll give you 3 guesses which way their political leanings bent.
So, you see, THAT is why they were able to thank god for the return of prosperity rather than FDR and the PWA. The viciousness of the campaigns directed at FDR was only exceeded by the uncommon generosity of the government in restoring those nearly hopelessly-ruined grasslands. Who says good deeds are not rewarded?
Maranon
Nov. 23rd, 2012 at 11:45 am
The farmers I know, are not rich, and they do not own corporations, they have held to the homestead land, that was given to them free, 160, 320 acres.
The land erosion varies in the plains (100,000,000 acres appx), and the core of the dust bowl was found to be in the Oklahoma and Texas Pandhandles.
1909 this area was farmed in more aggresive and intense ways.
1929- the Great depression arrived and the farmers did not feel it, initially, and continued to farm even harder.
1930 Drought+perennial wind=Dust Bowl starts.
1933 FDR first 100 days tackles this issue forms the Dept of Agriculture to put people to work
1935 The civilian conservation corps plan 2 million trees from Canada to Abilene Texas
1937 changes of farming methods with payments for not farming. (Michelle Bachman is still collecting her farm subsidy of 1 million Dls per year!)
My farmer friends collect their subsidies also, which makes them recipients of a form of welfare from the government, after getting the land for free. Some are also collecting Social security and disability payments from the government, yet they do not connect their well being to the federal presence in their lives.
They are the ones who side with the GOP because they are racist and ignorant. Bbaaahh!
John Hay
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 2:29 pm
When civics is not not taught in most US schools there is no independent means of communicating the role
of government and the rights and responsibilities of
citizens.
Many Americans appear to have little appreciation about
the critical importance of their vote and what they
should rightfully expect in a democracy from government
in the delivery of essential services fairly and
progressively funded from taxation revenue.
Voting needs to be compulsory. this is the first step to
one’s franchise being valued.
In consideration of voters Presidential and Congressional elections need be held over a weekend with voting spread
over two days and conducted separate from all other
elections.
Fred
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 3:20 pm
funny. Most liberal that I talk to have no depth of thinking at all. What I ask them why they like Obama they say I just don’t like the looks of the other guy
KatzKids
Nov. 22nd, 2012 at 5:45 am
Funny Fred. You prove the point of the article admirably.
Christopher
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 3:43 pm
This is an interesting premise since I find that generally it seems intellectually easier to be a liberal. That is, liberal views flow naturally from a basic understanding of facts while it seems conservatism often requires twisting one’s brain into a pretzel so that your “facts” conform to your pre-existing ideology.
Jack
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 9:15 pm
It’s only harder when you dive below the first layer of BS. If you just take it as read without really thinking about it, it’s so easy.
It’s when you start asking questions and investigating what’s beyond that first layer of lies that those who created them have to find a way to justify them and that’s where the headache starts.
William J. Green
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 5:52 pm
“Effort,” like all resources, is scarce and must be efficiently maximized. If Marxists spend a preponderance of effort sitting on their asses thinking how intellectually superior they are compared to their Conservative Jeffersonian counterparts, then far less will be built, constructed, and accomplished, and almost solely by the Conservatives.
This is just an excuse for laziness which the Progressives propone in spades. They’d rather spend their time bloviating and pontificating about why people are sitting on their asses and NOT doing stuff than actually doing stuff which ENLARGES the PIE and allows more people to have more pieces and even for more crumbs to fall from the table into their laps.
www.alan.com/2012/11/21/s...
Terri
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 8:29 pm
well I guess you proved that study correct with your nonsense but the hatred you feel towards liberals gives the pathological argument more weight.
So in a way you killed this study but not to your own benefit. The founders were liberals, by the way, but I suppose that is what happens when you spend time “thinking”.
A Walkaway
Nov. 23rd, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Well, I have to give you this. You didn’t try to frame it in terms of today. Marx… 1818 to 1883. Jefferson 1743-1836. DATED.
I have to strenuously disagree with linking Jefferson to conservative. He was almost a flaming liberal for his time, for instance, he was one of the earliest to insist that it was my ancestors who built the monumental earthworks the “settlers” kept encountering, and not some mythical (and non-existant) “Lost Tribe of Israel” (or other non-Indian group).
He was also a scientist, and for his time, very advanced. He was definitely NOT a “Christian” by the usual definition (except his ideas do fit in with a segment of Unitarianism and he DID attend a Unitarian church at one time). In fact, it’s a bit funny that you’d connect him with conservatism.
Anne
Nov. 22nd, 2012 at 9:52 am
The low-level thinking described in this article makes it easy to demonize the poor, racial and religious minorities, gays, and liberals. By the same token, it also makes it easy to deify the wealthy regardless of how they acquired or increased their wealth. That’s one of the reasons that some folks actually liked the dangerously flawed Willard Romney. The demonization that results from this low-level thinking also makes it impossible for those with it to deal with people who disagree with them in a reasonable way. It also substitutes empty slogans for intelligent dialogue. That’s why we see the likes of Speaker of the House John Boehner pitching a tantrum and attempting to obstruct the president’s efforts. The large-scale temper tantrums from the right since the president’s re-election make it painfully clear that they are low-level thinkers who substitute emotion for logic.
Mary
Nov. 22nd, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Does not low effort thinking equal stupid? What I consistently see in conservative tropes is an assertion based on some propaganda followed by a complete refusal to entertain any actual data that might contradict it. Often, any attempt to bring in actual data is met with the blank stare of an inability to comprehend any equations more complex than a+b=c. How is this not stupid?
Then there is the emotional attack my mother favors whenever her cherished tropes are challenged by facts is the retort that I’m not stupid, you just aren’t capable of understanding. And if I persist in the logical argument, she gets angry and accusatory saying I don’t respect her. The calmer I am, the angrier she gets. She is not stupid but she is very rigid.
This whole study supports the assertion that modern conservative thought is low intelligence, relies on authoritarian, even fascist simplistic thinking that worships the wealthy as morally superior by virtue of their wealth and thinks the poor are poor by virtue of not having enough. They don’t see the satire in the old Victorian view that a poor person failed to choose their parents well. And a whole lot of cognitive dissonance.
You really cannot have an intelligent discussion when they are incapable of following logical thought or the idea that if the basis of an assertion is false, then all that follows is also false. Basic high school geometry and logic.