Why the conservative fondness for the negative?
Image: Katarzyna Zwolska
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Long before Barack Obama chose “Yes We Can” as his 2008 campaign slogan, Republicans had been dubbed the Party of No. The label is popular among liberals as an insult for the GOP, but it’s also been embraced by conservatives as a proud self-description: for some on the right, the Party of No conjures the adults in the room saving future generations from an orgiastic spending spree, in the spirit of William F. Buckley’s proclamation that conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop.” These conflicting views were on display in the recent debt ceiling negotiations, with liberals frustrated by Republican obstructions, and conservative Tea Party members seeing it as their duty to say No to another debt ceiling increase.
Whether intended as a slur or a badge of honor, the Party of No label stems from specific policy preferences, mainly the conservative tendency to vote “no” on non-security domestic spending and tax proposals. At first blush, policy stalemates might seem simple differences of opinion on how to run the country. But a growing body of evidence is showing that partisan rancor goes far beyond the budget and policy fare of Sunday morning talk shows. As divisions between Red States and Blue States have grown (or at least acquired greater iconographic heft), so has interest in understanding the temperamental and attitudinal foundations of political ideology. An explosion of research over the last decade is revealing the psychological underpinnings of ideological differences, unearthing the subterranean meanings of the Party of No.
That Democrats and Republicans differ on matters from foreign policy to gay marriage is well established, but how do individuals arrive at such diametrically opposed worldviews? Researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University recently published evidence that even nonpolitical attitudes are formed differently in liberals and conservatives.
In two studies, students were presented with a conditioning task involving positive or negative images (like puppies and garbage) flashed before pictures of Chinese characters. The characters were totally new and value-neutral for these non-Chinese speaking students. Some characters always followed the cheery puppies and rainbows, while some always appeared after the aversive sewage and spiders. Another set came after a neutral gray square.
After a few viewing cycles, the students simply rated how much they liked or disliked each of the Chinese characters. (They had been told they were participating in a language and memory experiment to avoid muddying the data with political assumptions or overtones.) Both studies showed that the negative images had a stronger effect than positive images for everyone, supporting the robust psychological finding that negatives make a stronger impression than positives (i.e. the snarky evaluations you remember long after the glowing ones have faded). After the brief viewing, Chinese characters that had appeared after negative images were more disliked than the other Chinese characters, even though participants had no prior experience with them.
Most strikingly, both studies showed that this negativity dominance was especially true for conservative students. In other words, those on the political right showed more of a “bad is stronger than good” bias than those on the left. Surprisingly, the political difference wasn’t to be found in the negative images, which had a strong effect on everyone across the board. If you can wrap your mind around psych study jujitsu for a moment: the differences stemmed from participants’ responses to the positive images, which carried more weight with liberal students. For example, if viewing two hypothetical television ads—one featuring an impoverished village in shambles after a failed food distribution program, and one showing clean, happy children after a successful well installation—liberals may be more likely to be convinced of the potential success of future aid programs.
See what we're tweeting about
39 Comments
Add CommentReply to lowndesw:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the indigenous populations of the Americas would have been quite content had the Columbus expedition never been financed.
Isabella was Queen of Spain, not Portugal. Isabella and Ferdinand financed him because, among other things, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 closed a large portion of the overland Spice Route and gave a monopoly on the sea trade to the Venetians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong story short, they WERE going broke. And the reason why the Spanish crown was STILL broke, several thousands of tons of gold and 100 years later, was because of the constant naval warfare that they were waging against the Ottomans for control of the Meditteranean. Every scrap of gold that came back from the New World got turned into boats and armies and got sunk to the bottom of the Med.
And while the Ottomans were busy weakening Spain, Spain ultimately lost control of Catholicism and Europe...
So yeah, going West was not financed for the thrill of scientific discovery, just because it was there, or any other wishy washy liberal notion. It was financed as an investment into the war which ultimately destroyed the Spanish empire. And it also destroyed most of the indigenous tribes in the Western World in the process.
So no, I don't think that Liberals would want to take ownership of this one. You can have it.
Would be interesting to see this study reproduced in a setting with more than two parties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this........So yeah, going West was not financed for the thrill of scientific discovery, just because it was there, or any other wishy washy liberal notion. It was financed as an investment into the war which ultimately destroyed the Spanish empire. And it also destroyed most of the indigenous tribes in the Western World in the process..........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatently absurd. Without a distinctly LIBERAL mindset in a search of a western sea route to Cathy (China) which was actually unsubstantiated by the cartographers of the time, Colombus and Isabella would have NEVER pursued their quest.
Colombus was a very liberal dreamer. He was so consumed by his quest that he underestimated the size of the earth to estimate the distance to Cathy from west. Before he went to Isabella ge tried his luck at many other European courts and was promptly shown the door when conservatives there didn't trust him. He managed to convince Isabella in his last attempt at a european court to finance his voyage. Evidently Isabella didnt think like the conservatives of the other european courts.
Columbus was actually soo wrong that even after he discovered Cuba, he felt the mainland Cathy was only a few hundred miles away to the wast. Amerigo vespucci beat his sorry behind side in getting a continent named after him when he found the mainland a few hundred miles to the west and correctly recognized it as a new continent which was named after him.
The rest is history. So it stands without liberals like Colombus and patrons of liberals like queen Isabella- great leaps in human exploration of the world and it's understanding wouldn't have been possible. Conservatives like to live in fear and anger. They are indeed a party of no. They will always be party of no because their fear prevents them from seeing things beyond their noses.
I have noticed a trend lately of people tying to find some scientific basis for difference between political leanings and the trend lately of claiming scientific findings to explain other groups that we may disagree with. I think this is a problem because when we claim a scientific basis we can then use that as an excuse to ignore others for example if a person is mentally handicap we will often let him go about his business but we will ignore anything he may say. We have already seen such reports on MSNBC that "Proves" a mental defect in the Tea Party members and hence we should ignore anything they say in fact a pollitian, John Kerry has already stated such. I am not saying we shouldn't study differences but we have to be very VERY carefull in how these studies are done and interpreted and finally used. I have also seen articles in this magazine try to minimalize climate skeptics based on their mental defficeincies, I assume that because they the AGW'ers have grown impatient. Now to one of the problems in this and similar other studies. They do not explain if these attitudes are inherent then how come so many people change their beliefs has they grow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis discovery gives us all a great opportunity. It offers a way for liberals and conservatives to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Understand each other.
2) Understand ourselves.
3) Talk with each other in a way the other can hear.
4) Avoid the usual "you suck, we rock" crap that instantly kills #3 above.
The benefits of taking this opportunity are:
1) Ending our poisonous partisanship.
2) Being able to run this country in a way that all of us can live with.
3) Calming our fear of each other (yes, we do, think about it for a minute).
The risks of taking this opportunity are:
1) Admitting that we fear of each other.
2) Losing our self-righteousness.
3) Accepting that we have to live with each other.
4) Giving up the ridiculous idea that we can somehow get rid of or conquer the other half of this country.
My problem with conservatives is that they appear to actively resist making the world a happier safer place. They sow fear and then profit from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs awlays, these researchers are catching up to philosophers. Hobbes and Locke (intellectual godfathers of conservative thought) long ago made it clear that human beings were "bad" and that the world was a very dangerous place (this is especially true of Hobbes). And at the other end we have Rousseau who thought people were essentially good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right about Columbus being a dreamer. Unfortunately with scientific expeditions, the mindset of the actual explorer is hardly relevant. The important thing is what's on the BACKER's agenda. And that usually isn't of a liberal scientific bent. Lewis and Clark didn't go west because Jefferson was feeling a bit curious, and we didn't go to the Moon because we just had a hankering for cheese. In both cases the quest for knowledge takes a backseat to the political and market forces driving the money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn II didn't dump Columbus because he was more or less conservative than anybody else, he ditched him because he was already exploiting the hell out of Africa and India via the Cape Hope route. He had all the spice trade he needed and was keeping that nugget of information as far from the Spanish as he could.
Meanwhile Isabella is trying her damndest to kick Turkish butt off the peninsula and she's got cashflow issues. Taking Granada is a massive pain and the Ottoman piracy going up and down the Meditteranean coast is taking half of everything that floats. She has a real good incentive to find another route. Going south risks another war with Portugal and going east is a no-no...
So sure. Put the only liberal in the bunch on a half rotten boat and float him west. If he hits dirt and the locals speak Chinese, great, cut him a 10% check. And if he goes off the edge of the world who cares ?
Blarvitz - THANK YOU! You make the only real point necessary about differences. We can keep living in the belief that "You are different than me, what's wrong with you." Or, we can learn that, in our differences, we each learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery insightful, thank you. I have become obsessed with finding information as to why there are such conflicting views in politics. Beyond the "differing opinions" of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThroughout history, there has always been a progressive side and conservative side. Whether it's the crusades, astronomy, evolution, slavery, social accountability, the 2011 debt-ceiling or birth control paid for by the government... Being that we live in the time we do, with so much history to learn from, it blows my mind that little has changed.
It is obvious that we are talking about two different brains. Each utilizing different methods of gathering and accepting information in the formulation of ones opinions.
This study is great. It is no surprise, a neo-conservative would find this study offensive or threatening. Because of the fear of what it may imply, it will be filed in the "unfounded folder" of the brain and never considered again. It is the way they work.
Disclaimer: I am a liberal Christian who wants to reign in spending and raise taxes. Oh the irony!
I just don't understand why you have to be on one side or the other. Liberal or conservative aren't our only two choices. Remember - you need both wings to fly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBalloons, blimps, zeppelins, parasailing ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mostly agree with you and of those I don't agree I will not try refuting you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the studies that have been coming lately on differences in psychology of conservatives and liberals - I would like to believe that liberals are risk takers and conservatives are risk averse. Liberals probably have a lower level of fear of the unknown and like to be carried away by the positives. Conservatives on the other hand probably have a very high level of fear of the unknown.
The big picture probably is that we humans fall on a broad spectrum of risk takers and risk avoiders. People on the left look at positives. This is the way we are because there maybe an evolutionary advantage of having a mixed population evenly divided between the two.
Nice comment; which I think is absolutely true. For others it may differ depending where you are from. But in Holland we are used to many parties and thus also to left/right view mixes. Anyway a new breed is already rising that of the realistic middle. If right is conservative I would like to see some research about innovation regarding to left/right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if the right was to be more sensative I disagree on that. You can still be sensative about a matter but chose to pick a new positive route. In case of the ever invasion of foreigners this would be chosing strategies that are beneficial for both lefties or righties or visa versa in case some misreads the order of they are mentioned. Being sensitive doesn't mean one doesn't have positivity. Its more like how people handle adversity and thus like overcoming a dip or depression.
And so ad 4) we can surely get rid of the ridiculous idea we have to conquer the other half. What really is happening politicians and others throw sand in the eyes and hinder most people to see that this small population is not solving anything. Most solutions have come from scientist, inventors and curious people. All this technologies have shaped how we cooperate which different people and how globalization came into being.
The only thing we now have to do is not sharing only best practises in business, but also sharing best practices in governance and politics; based on facts, stability, economics and spread of wealth.
Nice comment; which I think is absolutely true. For others it may differ depending where you are from. But in Holland we are used to many parties and thus also to left/right view mixes. Anyway a new breed is already rising that of the realistic middle. If right is conservative I would like to see some research about innovation regarding to left/right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if the right was to be more sensative I disagree on that. You can still be sensative about a matter but chose to pick a new positive route. In case of the ever invasion of foreigners this would be chosing strategies that are beneficial for both lefties or righties or visa versa in case some misreads the order of they are mentioned. Being sensitive doesn't mean one doesn't have positivity. Its more like how people handle adversity and thus like overcoming a dip or depression.
And so ad 4) we can surely get rid of the ridiculous idea we have to conquer the other half. What really is happening politicians and others throw sand in the eyes and hinder most people to see that this small population is not solving anything. Most solutions have come from scientist, inventors and curious people. All this technologies have shaped how we cooperate which different people and how globalization came into being.
The only thing we now have to do is not sharing only best practises in business, but also sharing best practices in governance and politics; based on facts, stability, economics and spread of wealth.
Climate CHANGE!!!!! NOOOOOO WAAAAAY -- leftist conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you noticed that at stop lights there are always people who delay after the light goes to green .. then .. ROAR away burning up gas and driving as if the devil were at their back .. Conservatives.
I've always wondered what Right vs. Left wing means. We use the terms all the time with only an intuitive fell for what they mean. Maybe the historian jfmonod can educate us. How about liberals are lovers and conservatives are fighters? (even though more democrat members of congress have served in the armed forces than republican).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnybody wonder why this article is not titled the "Ideology of Yes"? Hmm...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have an old friend who is by nature, one cynical, peevish, pessimistic, and suspicious old bastard. He is very untrusting of people until he's known them for a long while,and basically has a pretty negative view of humanity in general. He says this is because of all the evil that goes on in the world, and that he thinks human beings are deeply flawed by design: that we are all basically selfish and in one way or another evil at heart. BUT, the thing is, he's a staunch liberal. He can't stand Republicans (he calls them "the republif*cks"!)or most conservatives in general (he calls them "greys" because he deems them incredibly boring and drab-minded). He's a lawyer by profession. Demographically, he's white, straight/married, a parent, middle-aged, and doesn't fall into any "minority" category. A white angry middle-aged male liberal! I'm very puzzled by him especially after reading about this study. The results of the study totally make sense to me but he doesn't fit the profiles AT ALL. Personally, I'm one of those bland people he rails against, just a middle-of-road, extremism is bad, kind of person. He puts up with me because we grew up in the same neighborhood, and remained friends for 50+ years now. Well, I guess there will always be outliers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMmm, each ideologic group springs into action, defending their own mythology and attacking that of the others. Really "scientific" and "objective" eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the study doesn't deal with is the difference between ideologues of any stripe and independent thinkers (and voters). Neither Republicans or Democrats are as monolithically united as they try to appear: both parties are composed of factions and the most extremist factions get the most attention and have the most influence. This formula FOR FAILURE and even disaster is what makes this study moot.
The greatest crime is that these ideologues ALL try to influence our economy and our culture and our educational system. The late George Carlin said, "It's the same everywhere: the Ruling Class gets people to fight over differences (like skin color or clothing styles or choice of religion or other potty ideologies), this is how they stay in power. The Ruling Class: pays no taxes and does none of the work. The Middle Class pays all of the taxes and does all of the work. The Lower Class: is just there to scare the {crap} out of the Middle Class so they'll keep working at those jobs!"
Americans are under the delusion that there is no Ruling Class. Instead, they buy into the idea that their NEIGHBOR is the enemy and spend their time fighting the wrong battle with the wrong people. The Ruling Class exists: and it's our ENEMY. Louis Black put it this way: The two parties are one big bowl of {crap} staring in the mirror at itself. -- Neither party has our interests at heart. The only way we're going to survive is if we BUY BACK our government from the Ruling Class. Doesn't matter who you vote for: so long as that person is YOUR representative in government.
political parties were not the issue, political ideaology was. There are (or there used to be) liberal republicans, and there are conservative democrats - people who choose party affiliation based not on ideaology, but on policy and party platform. Ideaological purity is one of the reasons the political system in the US has become so disfunctional and divisive. Just a thought from a card carrying liberal, veteran, atheist and member of the democratic party - political leaders who place their (or their party's) ideaology over their oath of office, their duty to the nation and their constituency are not good leaders and are do more harm than good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConservatives, in general, are not stupid or evil, they simply have different biases than liberals, generaly speaking. Some people are risk takers, some are risk averse. At a guess, a larger percentage of any general population is likely to be risk averse. That does not mean that all conservatives will always be Republicans, just that the Republican Party seems to have discovered the inherant bias of their base and found effective means to market to that bias and that base.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this~
The unspoken message here is that Liberals are more "Child Like" and innocent in their thinking, while Conservatives are more "Adult" and/or have been through the "School of Hard Knocks" in their thinking.
An example:
A man and his child are walking through the woods when a rattlesnake appears in front of them. The adult will recoil and reach for a weapon, while the child will smile and reach out towards the rattlesnake to pet it.
~
I think the problem here is that conservatives and liberals have different views of what makes the world a happier place. Whatever light can be shed on how we get to these differing views might help mutual understanding. It is a shame to see each using the same findings to criticise the opposite of view instead of trying to understand the other view, and grabbing the opportunity that Blarvitz describes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a number of studies concerning beliefs. A good one is "The Believing Brain" How we Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. The Author is Michael Shermer. If you read Scientific American, you will recognize his name as the author of the Skeptic column.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComment as much as you want, it won't change anyone's mind once they have reinforced their beliefs by cherry-picking studies, facts, news, etc.
The best thing is to listen to each other, shake hands, smile, and walk away shaking your head.
All that this study demonstrates, if it demonstrates anything at all, applies only to a small sub-set, of a sub-set, of a sub-set, etc. That is, undergraduates at some American university.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article and the type of comments it has garnered have no place in a magazine that purports to be scientific in nature. All of it is merely "psychobabble" content without even the use of well defined terms and concepts, which are essential for scientific communication and even conceptual schema. Such tripe is why most persons deeply involved in the so-called "hard sciences" regard the term "social science" as an oxymoron. It seems that Scientific American has lowered its standards to that of a popularity rag so as to be able to sell more magazines and advertisements. Physics, my own field, is the hardest and most basic to all the real sciences, and it is based primarily on "conservation" (as in "conservative") laws. There are no "liberal" laws of nature found in physics. If anyone used words and concepts as vague and ill defined as many of those used in the article above in a meeting of hard scientists, he or she would probably be laughed into shameful retreat from the meeting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistexacalian,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo! My fellow physicist. I am liberal. By that, I mean that given new real evidence, I willingly change my mind-set. Scientifically, I am conservative in the way you use the term and liberal in the way I use it.
I obtained a graduate degree in psychology midway through my physics career. When I looked at the literature in that field, I was astonished at some of the tripe that gets published. On the plus side, psychologists can be credited with developing statistical methods that were useful to me when I did air pollution studies based on physical measurements (Factor Analysis).
I have read Scientific American for years and seen it gradually descend to the level it has now achieved. Sensational cover story teasers, etc.
I don't see where the broad political conclusions cited can logically be derived from the minimal data presented. The data cited is apparently a memory test done on a group of college age students. We don't know how many students were tested. We don't know if they were required to participate as part of a class and if so what the class was about. We don't know whether they were undergraduate or graduate students, we don't know their major, we don't know whether they were employed, we don't know their race, their economic status, whether they were married or have children, or even their IQ. From this test, we are supposed draw a broad generalized political conclusion about people in general. Total nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a much simpler theory on people's political affiliations: For many people their political philosophy derives from careful thought about their life experiences.
I had a subscription to the print Sci/Am because it provided cogent articles to satisfy my scientific curiosity with up-to-date science. It now seems to have become liberal hogwash. I no longer subscribe and find only a few articles worthy of reading in the internet version.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCosmology is liberal hogwash?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLabeling can be hazardous at best. People can have differing conservative and liberal viewpoints on separate subjects. To either label someone or his/her thoughts is a common political trick to discredit the person, as if, I am right and they are wrong. Quite often the label is purposely given the kind of spin that is made to gather support on a controversial subject. Just listen to the politicians, objectively, if that's possible, and their labeling all begins to sound similar. Hence labeling is often just another form of finger pointing in order to avoid taking personal responsibility for having made a bad decision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere was the party of NO when GW Bush was president? They said YES to a stupid war in Iraq, YES to tax cuts and YES to vast spending increases leading to huge deficits and YES to huge increases of total debt. The party of NO likes to be to lied to (sorry: "misled") and bribed with their own money and other peoples money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like the party of NO likes war and debt that their children will pay for.
One group or the respondents has an angry defensive attitude. It's just research, just some thoughts, relax. Maybe that attitude needs some study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe writer seems to takes the liberal tendency as the baseline and that the conservative tendency to the negative is the aberration. As a conservative growing up in the 60s I concluded the exact opposite. "Why are all these open minded people saying yes to things such as drug use, free love, and a come-what-may attitude toward the future when so many generations have found those things lead to social decay?" You hit the nail on the head: we conservatives are very averse to change and new ideas, but in my personal experience it is because I have such a high regard for the opinions of the previous generations of writers and specifically for my parents. They were thoughtful, compassionate people who tried to help the world the way they had learned over the years worked best (e.g. working hard and controlling your passions). It amazes me to this day that so many progressives are willing to throw out the received wisdom of the generations yet run headlong into any new or foreign or retrograde philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease consider that being open minded to ALL schools of thought is another way of saying you do not value highly the philosophies and traditions that informed your parents. To discriminate is not a bad thing.
I put my money where my mouth was and wrote a blog entry that explains the Virginia Commonwealth University studies as proof positive that liberals tend to associate positive response to a positive stimulus than conservatives do, which is after all exactly what the studies proved. It is entitled "The Ideology of Yes: Liberals “Yes We Can” has Psychological Underpinnings" and can be found at http://www.bulletpeople.com/?p=2233.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting and provoking research. It's so true that often political opinions seem more radicated in the DNA of people rather than in their brains. And this is reflected as well in the party names: "conservative" is sure somebody more averse to change than a "liberal" would be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps "aversion to change" is the character that more distinguishes between these two attitudes, and which roughly corresponds to "saying no"?
This for me would have interesting philosophical consequences, as it would mirror the eternal struggle that we see in natural evolution, between the darwinian research for continual change towards a possible improvement and the need for consolidation towards a stable situation.
This research gives more support to the recent report in Current Biology, April, 2011, titled Political Orientations are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults. It shows correlations between liberal vs conservative thought processes and anatomical differences in the anterior cingulate cortex and also the right amygdala. It strikes me that evolution may indeed have seen to it that we human primates have a fair amount of <both> of these 'natures' or tendencies in our evolution.... Ie: that they both have roles to play in the survival of our species. But somehow, these days, the balance has become undone and skewed in terms of sheer political and economic power and influence. The ideology of influence and control, inherent in top levels of economic, political and other social institutions may have selected disproportionately for the conservative mind, by the last decades of the 20th century. This may be magnified by an understandable reaction on the part of conservatives to the great political and social changes from the 1960s onward, perceiving them as a strong negative threat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's to come of this, I can't guess. But it suggests a society out of dynamic control, moving away from all ordinary norms of tolerance. compromise and dialogue.