More practically, instead of trying to change people's emotional state (an effect that is temporary), astute policy makers might be able to phrase their ideas in a way that appeals to different worldviews. In a 2010 paper Irina Feygina, a social psychology doctoral student at N.Y.U. who works with Jost, found a way to bring conservatives and liberals together on global warming. She and her colleagues wondered whether the impulse to defend the status quo might be driving the conservative pooh-poohing of environmental issues.
In an ingenious experiment, the psychologists reframed climate change not as a challenge to government and industry but as “a threat to the American way of life.” After reading a passage that couched environmental action as patriotic, study participants who displayed traits typical of conservatives were much more likely to sign petitions about preventing oil spills and protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Environmentalism may be an ideal place to find common political ground. “Conservatives who are religious have this mind-set about being good stewards of the earth, to protect God's creation, and that is very compatible with green energy and conservation and other ideas that are usually classified as liberal,” Nail says.
Moral Scorecards
On topics where liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye, opposing sides can try to cultivate mutual respect. In The Righteous Mind, Haidt identifies several areas of morality. Liberals, he says, tend to value two of them: caring for people who are vulnerable and fairness, which for liberals tends to mean sharing resources equally. Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them fairness means proportionality—that people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in. Conservatives also emphasize loyalty and authority>, values helpful for maintaining a stable society.
In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.
Haidt has a message for both sides. He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's emphasis on laws, institutions, customs and religion is valuable. Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people. Liberal values, on the other hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of weaker members of society are respected; limiting the harmful effects, such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and ways of life.
Haidt is not out to change people's deepest moral beliefs. Yet he thinks that if people could see that those they disagree with are not immoral but simply emphasizing different moral principles, some of the antagonism would subside. Intriguingly, Haidt himself has morphed from liberal to centrist over the course of his research. He now finds value in conservative tenets that he used to reject reflexively: “It's yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both sides are wise to different virtues.”
This article was originally published with the title Calling a Truce in the Political Wars.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentI wonder what was the political leanings of participants in Milgram Experiment. Is it subconcious or cultural background that is responsible for the political variations? What is the relationship with the French research which found out that people close to Mediterranean votes Socialist but those living close to Germany votes for conservatives?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough, conservatives do not want to put contraints on large corporations (EPA, OSHA, etc); but they still consider corporations to be people. Their true authority is not the church but the corporate elite (Koch brothers, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, etc). The very elite who do not want contraints on themselves. These elites want contraints on small businesses, the middle class, and the poor -- that is, their potential competitors.
So many inconsistencies...
Liberals and conservatives only? What about libertarians?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRed/ blue, pro- / anti- whatever. Do you really think people are binery like that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiving in a country with two parties has worse effects on Americans than I thought... how sad...
If neurologists could only identify the specific neurons involved, they could be excised to produce more independents!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf conservatives are motivated by anxiety why do they oppose a social safety net?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf conservatives stare longer at grotesque images why say they're focused on threats, why not say they simply like those images?
As you know, the meaning of the words "right" and "left" to design political positions comes from the XVIIIth century french "revolution", the representatives seated in the right side of the assembly wanted a moderate path for changes, and those on the left endorsed immediate violent actions. I'd say that the words "right" and "left" have totally different meanings in the USA and elsewhere, for example in Europe, where there's a mix between different Internationale groups, more or less overlapped with the Marxist ideas and goals, these ideas specially endorsed in the nations with Latin-derived languages and other Mediterranean places, UK Labor party being different, as founded in the local thinker Fabian. This "left" political line doesn't exist in the USA, let us say from the incidents that involved the deaths of Nicola and Bart, and it won't be good for anybody equaling both, as European and other leftists are more self-righteous than others, and some still think in changing "the system" or "their world", even missing the fact that "capitalism" is not a system but the status quo, while most "socialist" or "leftist" proposals are true systems, that always make me remind the character Ceferino Piriz in the novel "Rayuela" by Julio Cortazar. Enjoy it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds suspiciously like a backward justification using scientific jargon. Scary that a magazine called "Scientific American" would publish such nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anyone actually practice science anymore?
Maybe liberals have a little more courage than conservatives? I know—conservatives are militaristic—but doesn't that often take the form of sending younger, poorer guys out to do the fighting?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry Emily, Anyone who doesn't see the logjam as initiated primarily by republican strategies is playing with reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a rare moment for me, I actually liked this article. Granted, there must be more to the referenced studies than what is relayed here, but I thought the author made a couple of good points regarding finding middle ground and/or consensus on key issues facing this country. More than I blame the parties for our current political dilemmas, I blame the people who fail to take responsibility for their actions (or inactions). As for blame, Dave, there's plenty to go around...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author writes: "When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative." What hogwash!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy that logic, "safe and secure" liberals would feel secure enough to remove all of the social "safety nets," like social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, etc., whereas conservatives (Republicans) would want to keep all of the safety nets currently in place and, in fact, would want to add more safety nets, such as "Omamacare."
On what scientific research does the author base that statement? And when did this publication dumb itself down to the point that an article such as this is published in Scientific American, as opposed to Cosmopolitan or Family Circle? If I had a paid subscription to this publication, I would cancel it!
It may be best to use the terms liberal and conservative, rather than right and left. The latter are a holdover from the dark ages (and before that Greco-Roman and Far Eastern moralistic thought; the yin-yang, i.e., shadow and light,) all of which found the left (the "sinister" as opposed to the "dexter") to be evil or of subservient estate. It is also interesting to note that words "liberal" and "libertarian" both derive from the Latin "liber" or to be free. Of course, the platforms of the Rs and the Ds have completely reversed each other since the Civil War and the party of Lincoln. Lincoln would most likely would be a D today, while Reagans much ballyhooed change from the Ds to an R could really be characterized as just his following the party precepts rather than his earlier "liberalism".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, contrary to the rant of PeterVB, this research is very germane to the study and practice of neuropsychology, since without an understanding of the source of particular mindsets and perceptions, a therapist has only anecdote and myth upon which to base assistance for those who are either excessively pessimistic or optimistic. Either can certainly prevent someone from achieving even part of their full potential.
I know I'm heavy, but you can't mix Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real inadequacy here is the fact that presentation of the Republicans as a monolithic monomind serves the Democrats and the press well, since they can use the misnomers "left" and "right" to frighten and control the masses. More nuanced analysis (try Googling "political compass") would reveal that the monolith is a myth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sure one would have trouble in the Democratic party espousing pro-gun positions, even though there certainly are some Democrats who understand and embrace that position. A similar shunning occurs with pro-choice Republicans, and each is driven by an irrational fear, and categorization, of the apostate as one who is morally unfit to claim the party as home.
This is honestly one of the sloppiest papers i've ever read..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats"
HUH.. I'd think if anything that would suggest conservatives like gore and pain.
And btw emily, David J is right.. the logjam exists because of the republicans. The GOP big wigs in the Senate and House met the NIGHT OF OBAMA'S INAUGURATION and vowed to stop anything and everything he tried to do. THAT is a verified fact. This country never had a chance.. it was more important to "get Obama"
The economy is growing despite their efforts
I've come across Haidt's arguments before in other publications and one of the things that bother's me is the dismissal of some of the liberal 'moral' implications of say environmentalism. This from a New York Times review http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all of "The Righteous Mind" "Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet." Truly? I find the use of pesticides and herbicides to be not only against 'care' aka harmful, but to also be 'unclean' or to partake in 'degradation.' So social conservatives assign that reaction to upholding chastity or for some - not eating specific foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo either Haidt has been interviewing a very narrow group of liberals or I am strange. Or maybe not asking the right questions....
Another point - when liberals discuss the need to redistribute wealth and the Tea Party sorts believe that people should reap what they earn...but liberals might counter that argument and ask - how much does the individual really earn on their own? Could certain companies make billions on oil and gasoline if society hadn't collectively built the roads. So which group in this scenario is aligned with Western individualism and which group is aligned with the concept of community?
Finally - my first reaction re eating the dead dog - was not was to ask if it was dead (you said dead - I assumed already dead), but how and why did the dog die? Scary.
This article is really lame. A) It's clearly biased in favor of liberals, and treats conservatives as though they are somehow abnormal and need to have their beliefs explored and their preferences changed. It reads like a study of criminal behavior. B) It's full of illogic. To take just one example, if conservatives are "more fearful and full of anxiety" then why are liberals so worried about climate change while conservatives are not? C) It completely ignores EXPERIENCE as a driver of political preference. My husband, his brother our sister-in-law have spent their whole lives in government and academia. Never worked in private industry. They naturally believe what Democrats tell them about Romney's selfish capitalism and cut-throat labor practices. But I've worked in high tech for 20 years and find that corporate dealings with employees are FAR more rational and fair. You get evaluated and your compensation varies with that, but the evaluation is very fair. As a result you're motivated to do well. In government and academia "dead wood" abounds because there is no rational feedback loop on performance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is danger in over-thinking things like this. While it's interesting to read about the differences between liberals and conservatives - and valuable to imagine there can be a common meeting of the two types: the fact is that both parties muddle and manipulate the public with propaganda. Propaganda experts on both sides already know they can stimulate the fear response in EITHER kinds of voters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real common ground which would simultaneously stimulate cooperation while defusing propagandist use of fear is to mandate honesty in political campaigning. This is "not exciting" and therefore not popular with the majority. If the goal is honest ways to improve or advance national interests, then there's no alternative but to remove dishonesty. Removing dishonesty can most readily done by punishing dishonest tactics and statements. Of course, that would take time - otherwise MOST of the membership in both parties as well as many office holders would be imprisoned or fined heavily.
The very idea that any extant ideology is the all-purpose answer to national conditions and problems is nonsense (therefore dishonest) and should be banned. Ideologies don't solve problems: they create them. Preaching ideology isn't a protected freedom because: it's merely the occupation of a scam artist. To think otherwise is to doom Mankind to perpetual disasters. The only acceptable ideology is that of honesty.
"Even if these two worldviews clash, they are equally grounded in ethics, he writes. " -- the person making such a statement has no knowledge of ethics. Ethics implies (actually requires) definitive standards used to determine compliance or noncompliance. And there's no sure guarantee that any ethical system is without flaw - but that doesn't mean all ethical systems are "equal" by any stretch. Two individuals or groups being "equally grounded" in an ethical system which is erroneous may well mean conflict will follow for a number of reasons already known - but which are ignored by these "researchers" and "theorists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis SciAm writer needs a good education in reasoning and philosophy before he's allowed to write for SciAm (which itself seems devoid of even standard practice when it comes to editorial review of articles for the magazine. The so-called research he's reporting on is also showing us how some "scientists" become detached from reality while pursuing their own theories about how things work.
If they wanted to be clear: they'd have said that two individuals or groups could believe in mutually antagonistic ideologies but never could it be said that being "equally grounded" in flawed political / ethical systems provides some kind of puzzle or shows any other kind of valid reason for conflict.
The root of conflict and evil in our political arena is all about dishonesty and fraud - committed with the instrument of propaganda.
What's missing isn't a new theory of how "innate nature" determines political nature, what is missing is any mention of honesty in peddling these bogus ideologies.
The right wing and left wing is merely a reflection of personality. Thinking introverted and extroverted are right wing. Left wing are feeling extroverted and introverted. Enlightened thinking is being able to liberate ourselves from identitfying too closely with either side. Individuation is being able to see both the dark and light sides of people and harnessing both energies where appropriate. Politics is an outmoded concept, belonging to the control/conform stage of human development, rather like the teenage stage of development where teenagers align themselves with their peer group. The next stage is maturity, where we become more connected, collaborative and contribute to the whole. Fear takes us backwards in development. Now we are in recession, fear will make conservatives want to conserve the status quo. They will want to protect their status, salary, sex and security and so will attack anything which threatens this. So now immigration, terrorists all these usual scapegoats will come under attack. In the UK the prsent goverment has just moved more to the right in a cabinet reshuffle. Go back to basic level of behaving. This prevents having to transform society. The economy is exhausted,the environment endangered, religion has become redundant (ask the dalai lama) capitalism has become corrupted. The people in power who could change the situation will not, becuase they would probably have to make themselves redundant in order to do so. You cant have a hierarchical system when you genuinly collaborate. We need to see reality ('do' enlightened thinkng) and you can't do that from a one sided ideology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had an old tv growing up, one with dials. When connected to the cable outlet, I was able to get the local channels, and a few cable ones. One of them was Country Music Television. I wasn't a fan of country music, so I never watched it. However, because of the dials, I would sometimes have to flip past it to get to a show I wanted to watch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne day, I saw something on there that caught my attention, so I stopped. (I was a teenager, and it was Shania Twain's "Any Man of Mine" video. You do the math.) I liked it, it was a pretty video and a catch song. So I found myself flipping to that channel more often. I usually missed it, but I would find other songs that I enjoyed as well. I wouldn't say that I'm a country music fan, but there are specific artists and songs that I like.
That would never happen in today's world. Remote controls mean we only go to the channels we want. Cable networks can be so specialized that an entire channel can be dedicated to a very specific viewpoint. The web allows us to get as much content as we want, when we want it, and only what we want. So we never have to be exposed to a differing viewpoint, and everything we read or watch reinforces our beliefs, rather than informing them.
Isolation, fear - these are the tools of a cult. They are also the tools that the political parties use, whether directly, or indirectly through a sort of self-imposed indoctrination where we voluntarily isolate ourselves from differing viewpoints.
Political parties have become cults, so it's no wonder that so many people are of the mindset that the only right answer is their answer, and anyone who doesn't agree is either stupid or evil. We've lost perspective. We've lost the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, and see things from their point of view. You don't have to agree, but you do have to respect and acknowledge that someone else's viewpoint is potentially as valid as your own. The more people that can do that, the more likely our government will be to actually getting something done, because the more likely we'll be to be willing to find compromises to work for the most people.
The solution suggested for getting "liberals" and "conservatives" to work together seems to be tricking them by the clever and artful use of framing. In other words, if you use common car salesman's tricks of emphasizing the features of an automobile that appeal to different categories of customers you can con more people into buying it. This is no solution, just merely a way of manipulating human beings. When the swindle is discovered people are madder and less cooperative than before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simple fact is that everyone does not have identical interests nor do they reason issues out in identical ways. The best solution is a society which allows everyone to live according to the values, opinions and beliefs that appeal to them. Liberals give this idea lip service but almost always drive to force their ideological constructions on others. The idea that anyone could have a legitimate difference of opinion on basic issues is difficult for them to tolerate. Jonathan Haidt’s excellent book, The Righteous Mind, explains why.
This study is somewhat biased and useless based on that last paragraph. The bias all references to conservative were negative with an occasional comment that maybe something is tolerable or useful. The liberal references were all stated with positive language.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last paragraph attempted to state both sides must come together in the middle with is insane. Also, the article or study seems to only be dealing with the most extreme of both sides as opposed to the more likely majority of those who are not extreme. For example, there is no compromise with abortion, gay marriage welfare/communism. The ideas that religion or socialism has a place in american law are just plain wrong. My right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. A woman has a right to her life and the presence of a fetus does not alienate her right, I have the right to my money, the fact a bunch of whiny socialist liberals want to take my money in the name of the poor does not alienate my right to my freedom pursuit of happiness.
The bottom line is there are bad ideas, bad beliefs and bad dogma and bad manifestos and there should never be a compromise or a meet in the middle. The problem with both extremes is they are the same. Both want to restrict freedom for their own belief in how the world should work and that makes them both wrong.
How about the next study actually be of the majority of conservatives who believe the Constitution as it was intended to apply to the people is followed and big government religion has no place in america and the majority of democrats who also believe the Constitution as it was intended to apply to the people and big government communism/socialism has no place in america. The extremes of both parties should be smacked into irrelevance not studied to try and determine how pseudo science can make it seem like being liberal is the way all of us should be.
"When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy then, is the insistence on nationalized health care a traditionally Liberal core value? The same can be said for extreme environmentalism and other "insecurity"-driven issues.
The article seems entirely too naive and oversimplified to me.
It's interesting to me that the mere mention of "liberals" and "conservatives" and peoples' fangs come out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelax. The article doesn't say ALL liberals are this or ALL conservatives are that.
Of course personality traits play a part in our politics. My brother and I are only 20 months apart in age (49 and 51) and have completely different views on politics. Our world views are almost polar opposites...as are our personalities. But we are both good, moral people. It just makes sense that, while people's experiences and surroundings influence political views personality traits are a big part of it, too.
I thought the article was stimulating, just as it seems to have all the excited commenters I just read. Keep in mind (1) it was too brief for too complex a topic and (2) it was actually a Book Report on two books that are longer than one page each. I intend to read those two books to see first hand what I deem they say. And I know from my experience that the makings of a conservative or liberal/progressive perspective or set of beliefs on which to argue probably have innate psychological bases, but environment also modifies that beginning basis. Too many of the commenters exhibited the same old dogmatic irrational off-topic name-calling that the article was addressing. I suggest some of you try some sincerely devoted introspection. I was surprised and much more disappointed in the readership than I was in the too-brief book reports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn "the Blank Slate" Pinker argues that morality is based on "the expectation of reciprocity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe right sees no expectation of reciprocity from the poor, and feels contempt. Feels cheated, in fact.
Liberals see no understanding or expectation of reciprocity from the right wing billionaires who benefit so much from our social, physical and technological infrastructure, created by so many and by government.
Right wing people feel under attack because they are being forced, in their view, by liberals into non-reciprocal relationships. Liberals feel that right wingers are out to destroy the reciprocity that the well off owe to the less fortunate simply out of human dignity, a moral value above even reciprocity.
Hence there is no sense of the common good, which rdepends on an agreement about reciprocity.
The traditional civic virtues are:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrudence (foresight about consequences, with a good dash of fear of consequences). Liberals and conservatives differ about what the consequences are for many policies, conservatives alert to the downside, liberals to the upside.
Justice, but a prudent justice. People should get what they work for, unless for some reason they cannot work and then justice requires that at least their minimal needs be met. The guilty need to be corrected, sometimes punished. Those who work hard for what they have have a right to hold on securely to what they own, but a prudent justice includes a willingness to share some with others.
Fortitude/courage. But a prudent courage, willing to fight when the cause is sufficient but avoiding of unnecessary conflicts and acting moderately in the fight and in victory.
Temperance. But a prudent temperance. Acting moderately, saving, preparing for hard times, acting considerately, restraining egotism and pride for the sake of self and mutual respect. But not an extreme self-denial.
Perhaps there needs to be a continuing discussion of the virtues, apart from divisive issues like welfare, war, taxes, family, etc.
CitizenWhy is an example of how more of us should think before we talk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy Compliments.
Conservatives don't see it this way. Just spent thanksgiving with a bunch of them. They are good people, but the media they consume convinces them that the Koch Bros./big oil/big whatever deserve their wealth and power because they worked for it. They also believe that those we go to war with are pure evil. They have a hard time understanding nuance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will say that I find it funny that only a liberal what attempt to try and understand the conservative point of view. Conservatives never seem interested in learning from the other side.
When are we going to stop valuing both ideologies as if they are equal ends of the same spectrum? Always trying to find equivalency in order to appear non-bias and fair? Read "It's Even Worse Than It Looks." It's eye opening.