Actions

Difference between revisions of "Conservatives and Liberals"

From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki

(→‎The causes in the light of brain research)
m (Reverted edits by WinSysop (talk) to last revision by 94.159.131.40)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
For many of those who attempted to reach an agreement between liberals and conservatives on wide variety of issues,  it seems that the gaps in understanding the situation between the parties is very hard to negotiate. The misunderstanding sometimes become an emotional issue, which result the raising of a wall of contempt that blocks any further path to mutual understanding. Thus, understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives and the grounds for the schism, may help find devising deliberative process which will support a better mutual understanding and even agreed decisions.
+
[[File:Lib-con summery.JPG|200px|thumb|right|Overview of the theory of conservatives and liberals]]
  
−
[[conservatism|Conservatism]] and [[liberalism|Liberalism]] in the context of deliberation is states of mind that create different reaction to wide variety of issues. When people in the state of mind of conservatism they usually will be less suspitable to adopt new ideas, they will be more planed-action driven and sometimes more aggressive or fearful<ref>[http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=poliscifacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.il%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Diw%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1026%2526context%253Dpoliscifacpub%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm06hrHGDT1Hjj8pNKxLQjtPRgZVpg%26oi%3Dscholarr%26ei%3DlU2vUIwVqqfRBfqCgbgN%26ved%3D0CB4QgAMoADAA#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1026%26context%3D Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford. John R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2008). Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science, 321, 1667–1670.]</ref>. Conservatism is driving people to group more closely<ref>[http://www.charlielawing.com/metaphor_and_politics.pdf Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust. Social Research, 62(2), 177–213.]</ref>. On a state of liberalism, people will be more ready to exam new ideas, be less action driven, and more friendly and cooperative toward strangers. In liberalism state, people tend to be more individualistic or to get along according to occasionally sharing of interests.
 
  
−
Conservatives has more need for clouser, while liberals can take more ambiguity. This is due to the [[FFFF]] mode that results from their preception of strangers as threat.
+
Conservatism and Liberalism is a wide phenomena which presnt itslef in very divers areas of social life. It is well knowen that there are some who behave in a conservative way, and some in liberal way. Although it is well knowen phenomena, it was hard to charctrized precisly the properties of liberals and conservatives, and it is stil not very well established, what are the causes of liberalism and conservatism.
  
−
Recently I have seen that Liberals and Conservatives can also be looked at as [[thinkers and doers|Thinkers and Doers]]
+
In this papae I will make an effort to give a coherent view of the cartrization of the lib-con phenomena, and will try to give also a coherent mechnism for the causes of lib-con, based on recent years research in psychology and neurocognitive.
  
−
See also: [[Conservatives and Liberals: literature review]]
+
==Letriture review==
 +
===Charectristics of Lib-Con===
 +
Liberalism and conservatism (LibCon) is a phrsae taken form the political scene, but it may apply to commerce, fashion and other social attitudes. In commerce, liberals, or early adopters, are people who tend to buy the newst products, while conservatives look for well tested products, who are old-fashiond<ref>Rogers Everett M., 1962,Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press of Glencoe, Macmillan Company</ref>. Although the phenomena is well knowen, It's cahrectarisitc are buffleing. A well knowen attempt to [[Paper: Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or,  Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust ,George Lakoff, 1995|the phenomena was done by Lakoff]]<ref>[http://www.charlielawing.com/metaphor_and_politics.pdf Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or,  Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust ,George Lakoff, 1995]</ref>. Lakoff put liberals on the carring and empathic moral and the conservatives on the strong moral, which divide the world in to good and evil.
  
−
{{stub|[[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 03:46, 14 October 2014 (MDT)}}
+
The charectaristics of conservatives<ref>[[Paper: Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jost et al. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375|Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jost et al. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375]]</ref>
  
−
==description of liberalism and conservatism ==
+
===Causes of Lib-Con===
  
−
"Recent research provides evidence that one important difference between liberals and conservatives is their basic moral intuitions. These studies suggest that while liberals and conservatives respond similarly to considerations of harm/care and fairness (what Graham and Haidt call the “individualizing” foundations), conservatives also respond strongly to considerations of in-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not."<ref>[http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Wright-and-Baril-2011-The-Role-of-Cognitive-Resources.pdf Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 1007–1012.]</ref>
 
  
−
Liberals are more moved by harm then conservatives and much more then libertants (see Haidt, 2102, Righteous in mind p. 212).
+
Conservatives are more fearful, while liberals are more calm<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5896/1667.full Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits, 2008, Hibbing et al. Science] ([http://www.talyaron.com/wiki/index.php?title=Political_Attitudes_Vary_with_Physiological_Traits,_science_2008 Hebrew summery])</ref>. Conservatives percives thetening faces as more threatning<ref>[http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2414/version/1/files/npre20082414-1.pdf JM. Vigil (2008) Facial Expression Processing Varies with Political Affiliation, Nature]</ref>.
  
−
===Conservative Society===
+
There is a connection between liberalism and intelegence<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x/full The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind Dana R. Carney, John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling3, Jeff Potter4, ''Political Psychology'', Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 807–840, December 2008]</ref>.
  
−
In conservative society, there is a tendency to align according to legitimate theories and customs. People afraid to think differently, otherwise they will be criticized heavily, as enemies or as collaborators with the enemy. This is probably due to the need for closure and the feelings of threats.
+
===self motivation for conservatism===
 +
conservatism can be caused by:
 +
* [[FFFF]]
 +
*Important of actions and time presure, which sustaning information can be too costly<ref>[https://www.msu.edu/~pleskact/research/papers/op729_pleskac.pdf A Dynamic and Stochastic Theory of Choice, Response Time, and Confidence] ([http://www.talyaron.com/wiki/index.php?title=מאמר:A_Dynamic_and_Stochastic_Theory_of_Choice,_Response_Time,_and_Confidence review in Hebrew])</ref><ref>A paper about time and change of attitude for learning</ref><ref>[http://www.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=y2BFhu0lZfgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=time+decision+making&ots=eLyQCYrfwf&sig=mzP3YLD7qvhPejpQGxloCsU7IR4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=time%20decision%20making&f=false Author, 1990 , Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making]</ref><ref>*Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp.91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</ref><ref>Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19,448–468.</ref><ref>Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383–393.</ref>
 +
** Ambiant noise (White noise)<ref>Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.</ref>
 +
** Mental fatigue (Ego deplition)<ref>Webster, D. M., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). On leaping to conclusions when feeling tired: Mental fatigue effects on impressional primacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 181–195.</ref>
 +
** alcohol intoxication<ref>Webster, D. M. (1994). Groups under the influence: Need for closure effects on the use of shared and unique information. Unpublished
 +
doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.</ref>
 +
* Low need for cognition
 +
* Personal need for structure<ref>Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., & O’Brien, N. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544–555.</ref>)and there is a scale for cognitive closure NFCS<ref>Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.</ref>
 +
** Prefernce for order and sturcture.
 +
** Emotional discomfort associated with amvbigiuty (it can be domain specific and [[FFFF]] related. [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]])).
 +
** Impetiante and impolsivity with regard to decision making.
 +
** Desire for security and predictability.
 +
** Colsed-mindnessnes.
  
−
Observed: Doron Tzur, 2013, private talks.; Tal Yaron, establishing the forum in Kedumim 2007.
+
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism The Theory of RWA] (Right-Wing Authoritarian)''': Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it. <ref> [http://ussc.edu.au/s/media/docs/publications/1006_Inequality_Stenner.pdf Stenner, Karen (2009). "Three Kinds of “Conservatism". Psychological Inquiry: 142-159]</ref>. In it start the reserchers<ref>Adomo, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswilc, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.</ref>, proposed that harsh parenting styles brought on by economic hardship led entire generations to repress hostility toward authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated deference and idealization of authority and tendencies to blame societal scapegoats and punish deviants.Altemeyer charcrized RWA as (p.148)<ref>Altemeyer, R. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University ofManitoba Press.</ref>:
 +
* “a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate”;  
 +
* “a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, whichis perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities”; and
 +
* “a high degree of adherence to the social conventions which are perceived to be endorsed by society” .
  
−
Conservative tend to look only on evidence for the justice of their country, and to dismiss evidence to the contrary.
 
  
−
Conservatives show more anger towards criminals<ref>Fodor, Wick, Hartsen, & Preve, 2008</ref>. Conservatives are more happey due to social conformation<ref>Schlenker, Barry R., John R. Chambers, and Bonnie M. Le. "Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction." Journal of Research in Personality 46.2 (2012): 127-146.‏</ref>
+
'''Need for closure''' comply to regin idealogy<ref>Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.),Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</ref><ref>Golec, A. (2001, July). Need for cognitive closure and political conservatism: Studies on the nature of the relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Cuernavaca, Mexico.</ref>. But also when a need for closure is felt, also left-wing ideologies will become regid<ref>*Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. All in all, people with high need for closure will prefer rigid, construct and well defined theories<ref>Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. New York: Plenum.</ref>.
  
−
==Environmental Causes for Conservatism and Liberalism==
+
'''[[Regulatory Focus Theory]]"'''(High demends, critisicem): When one has aspirations (ideals) and on the other hand responsibilites (oughts), and his parenting role models asked him to acomplish high goals, but was focused on saftey, avoding of negative outcomes combined with punishment, the child will grow up to be with strong need for closure, while holding, high ideas. This will be the base for some of the left-wing illiblerals ideologies<ref>Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.</ref><ref>Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as amotivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–45.</ref>.
−
Conservatism and liberalism as reactions to environmental states.
 
  
−
Based on [[Haidt Moral Foundations Theory|Haidt findings]] I suggest that liberalism and conservatism are reactions to environmental state. Haidt found that liberal and conservatives differ in their attitude toward six typical values. I'll suggest that these differences of attitude may stem reactions to different environmental situations. Liberalism may stem from a reaction to safe and abundant environment while conservatism may be a reaction to dangerous environment which is scarce of resources.  
+
'''Terror Management Theory'''<ref>Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press</ref>: fear of death may be a cause for political conservatism<ref>Wilson, 0. D. (l973). The temperamental basis of attitudes. In 0. D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (pp. 187—196). London: Academic Press</ref>, and may motivate conservatism<ref>Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, 5. (1986). The causes and consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror management theory.In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189—207). New York: Springer-Verlag.</ref><ref>Greenberg, 3., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory: II. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308—318.</ref><ref>Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Lyon,D.(1989). Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 68 1—690.</ref>.Greenberg at al, suggested that TMT will no lead to conservatism, but just to strengthening of basic values<ref>Greenberg, 3., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D.
 +
(1992). Terror management and tolerance: Does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one’s worldview? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 212—220.</ref>.
  
−
The idea that creatures tend to react  with different strategies to different environmental situations is not new. In ecology it is known that in organisms react to a harsh or safe environment with two different strategies of breeding: one is named ''r selection'' and the other is ''k selection''. R selection is a strategy suited for an environment which is dangerous and has scarce resources. In this strategy, creatures tend to give birth to many offsprings and they tend to give them minimal resources in their nurture. In such strategy, some of the offsprings may survive the harsh conditions and the dangers. For instance some kinds of fishes ten to lay ten of thousands of eags, and they don't take care of them. from such multitude, only few survive predation ang go into adulthood.  But when the environment is safer and there are more resources, creatures tend to have less offsprings and they tend to give each of them much more care and resources while nurturing them. They protect their offsprings and prepare them for adulthood.  
+
'''Just world theory''': The just-world hypothesis (or just-world fallacy) is the cognitive bias that all human actions eventually yield morally fair and fitting consequences, so that, ultimately: noble actions are duly rewarded and evil actions are duly punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to, or expect consequences as the result of, an unspecified power that restores moral balance; the fallacy is that this implies (often unintentionally) the existence of such a power in terms of some cosmic force of justice, desert, stability, or order in the universe.
  
−
It seems that  that  r and k strategies, also apply to breeding patterns in humane societies. Liberal societies where there are plenty of resources and life are safe tend to sustain a lower birth ratio compared to conservative societies, in which poverty is prevailing and life are less protected.
+
The fallacy popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech, which often imply a negative reprisal of justice, such as: "You got what was coming to you," "What goes around comes around," and "You reap what you sow." This phenomenon of this fallacy has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s<ref>Lerner, M.J. & Montada, L. (1998). An Overview: Advances in Belief in a Just World Theory and Methods, in Leo Montada & M.J. Lerner (Eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World (1–7). Plenum Press: New York</ref>. Since that time, research has continued, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just world beliefs<ref>Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences; 34: 795–817.</ref>.
  
−
While r and k selection is well documented strategies for birth, I'll suggest that conservatism and liberalism are two strategies for group behavior in the face of dangerous or safe environment. One of the reason that help me suggest such hypothesis is a research done by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt found that conservatives and liberals have different attitudes towards six values. The values are loyalty, respect for authority, fairness, sexuality, defend from harm and liberty. Liberals tend to value loyalty and authority less then conservatives. Liberals tend to have a less strict need for controlling the sexuality. Conservatives tend to legitimize punishment of insubordinate individuals and groups, while liberals tend to defend the unorthodox. Conservatives see fairness as a reward for an investment, while liberals tend to share more resources and distribute them more evenly, regardless of one's investment. And of course, liberals tend to value liberty in the face of society more then conservatives does.
+
===Group motivation for conservatism===
 +
'''Social Dominance Theory''' (SDO): According to social dominance theory, human societies strive to minimize group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify the hegemony of some groups over others<ref>Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 191—263.</ref><ref>Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.</ref><ref>Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J.McGuire (lids.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183—219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press</ref><ref>Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press</ref><ref>Sidanius, J., Prattu, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476—490.</ref>. They achive it by legitmizing myths like (a) parental myth, in which the dominent group is the only one capable of mangment of the large group. (b)"reciprocal myth", in which every group should take it's place, and the dominante group shoul lead. (c) Sacred myth, which give dominence to one group over others by the authourity of God<ref>Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J.McGuire (lids.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183—219)(look at pp. 207-209).Durham, NC: Duke University Press</ref>.
  
−
it seems that such difrences in attitude, may help a group to adapt itself to change in an environment. The conservative value in which fairness is based on reciprocity and that hard work is needed for one to earn his living, can help encourage people to work hard in an environment where resources are scarce. On the other hand, in a state of abundance, where there is plenty to go around, there is no need to work hard to obtain resources. In this case people can share more resources.
+
SDO and RWA compose of 50% of the statisitcal varience of prejudice and athnocentrism, which is large part of the affectors (Altemeyer 1998 p. 47). SDO is more dominante and RWA is more submissive<ref>“Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47—91). New York: Academic Press. in p.75</ref>. as Jost et al put it "One can therefore infer that the most inexorable right-wingers are those who are motivated simultaneously by fear and aggression"<ref>John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339—375 (p. 350. left col buttom)</ref>.
  
−
==high levels proposed causes of liberalism and conservatism==
+
===Main Causes of Conservatism===
−
===Causes of conservatism===
+
[[File:Jost et al - Conservatism motives.gif|200px|thumb|right|The causes of conservatism according to Jost et al (2003)]]
−
Some genes differ between conservatives and liberal<ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228366891_A_Genome-Wide_Analysis_of_Liberal_and_Conservative_Political_Attitudes/file/3deec5164c67a34233.pdf Hatemi, Peter K., et al. "A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes." Journal of Politics 73.1 (2011): 271-285.‏]</ref>, asspecialy genes related to [[NMDA]] and [[serotonin]].
+
[[File:Yaron - Causes of conservatism 2012.gif|200px|thumb|right|The causes of conservatism according to [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] (2012)]]
  
−
Enviromental threat elvate conservatism<ref>Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The Impact of Social Threat on Worldview and Ideological Attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199–222. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00322</ref>. For instance, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10884617/Middle-aged-professional-men-who-vote-Tory-most-likely-to-be-victims-of-road-rage.html middle-aged, professional men who vote Tory most likely to be victims of road rage].
+
"Theoretical and empirical considerations lead us to conclude that virtually all of the above motives originate in psychological attempts to '''manage uncertainty and fear'''<ref>John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339—375 (p. 351. left col middle)</ref>."These, in turn, are inherently related to the two core aspects of conservative thought mentioned earlier—resistance to change and the endorsement of inequality".Thus, epistemic needs affect the style and manner by which individuals seek to overcome uncertainty and the fear of the unknown<ref>Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay episremics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. New York: Plenum.</ref><ref>Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: BasicBooks. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sorrentino, R. M., & Runey, C. I. R. (2000). The uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing the unknown. Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis</ref><ref>Wilson, 0. D. (lid.). (l973). The psychology of conservatism. London: Academic Press</ref>. Existential motives, too, involve a desire for certainty and security that is associated with resisting rather than fostering change, and is highly corolated for need for certenty<ref>Dechesne, M., Janssen, J., & van Knippenberg, A. (2000). Derogation and distancing as terror managementstrategies: The moderating role of need for closure and permeability of group boundaries. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79, 923—932.</ref><ref>McGregor, I., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, 1. 0., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). Compensatory conviction in the face of personal uncertainty: Going to extremes and being oneself. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 80, 472—488.</ref>.
  
−
Jost et al, did a very large survey on research about conservatism. They have found two main causes for conservatism. One is a reaction to a state of fear, and the other is a reaction to a need to do work in limited time<ref>[http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.]</ref>. The idea that threat is causing people to bevcome more conservatives was further corroborated by an experiment that showed that under fear conditions, liberal students judge like conservative students<ref>[http://www.yorku.ca/ianmc/readings/NailMcGregorConservativeLiberalsJESP2009.pdf Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901–907. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.013]</ref>.
+
===Reserch===
 +
Evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with:
 +
* mental rigidity and closed-mindedness - The most contributng factor is mental rigidty<ref>Adorno et al., 1950, in [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Rokeach, 1960 [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Wilson 1973c [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Christie
 +
1954 [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. Research on cognitive sophistication and integrative complexity provides the soundest basis for evaluating claims linking epistemic motivation to political ideology<ref>(e.g., Gruenfeld, 1995;
 +
Sidanius, 1985, 1988; Tetlock, 1983, 1984) in [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. Recent work on personal need for structure<ref>Schaller et al., 1995, in Jost2003</ref> and the need for cognitive closure<ref>D. M. Webster & Kruglanski, 1994 in Jost2003</ref> helps to complete the picture.
 +
**increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity - The right wingers are much more mentaly rigid (dogmatice) the left-wing extremists <ref>Barker, E. N. (1963). Authoritarianism of the political right, center, and left. Journal of Social Issues, 19, 63—74.</ref>, according to the reserch in the field<ref>Altemeyer (1981, 1998) in Jost2003</ref><ref>Billig (1984) in Jost 2003</ref><ref>s (Barker, 1963; Christie, 1991; Elms, 1969; Pettigrew, 1958; Rokeach, 1960; Smithers & Lobley, 1978; Stacey & Green, 1971) in [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. Right wingers, Modrate and extrem, are much more intolrate to ambiguty<ref>See Jost 2003, p. 353</ref>.
 +
** decreased cognitive complexity - Left-wingers have more cognitive complexity the right-wingers. Modrates in both wings, have more complexity then extrimists<ref>[http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003] p. 353</ref>, but these results are not conclusive.
 +
** decreased openness to experience
 +
** uncertainty avoidance: r=.34 p<0.0001 to conservatism (Jost et al. 2003)
 +
** personal needs for order and structure
 +
**need for cognitive closure
 +
* lowered self-esteem
 +
* fear, anger, and aggression
 +
* pessimism, disgust, and contempt
 +
* loss prevention
 +
* fear of death
 +
* threat arising from social and economic deprivation
 +
* threat to the stability ofthe social system
  
−
Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals<ref>[http://yoelinbar.nfshost.com/papers/disgust_conservatism.pdf Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714-725.]</ref>. People with anxiety tend to make more conservative decisions and use vocabulary with more negative words<ref>Peng, J., Xiao, W., Yang, Y., Wu, S., & Miao, D. (2013). The Impact of Trait Anxiety on Self-frame and Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</ref>.People that where exposed to priming of uncleanlesnes<ref>[http://erikhelzer.squarespace.com/storage/HelzerPizarro2011.pdf Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). Dirty liberals!: Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517-522.]</ref> or bad taste<ref>Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A Bad Taste in the Mouth Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295–299.</ref>become more conservatives.
 
  
−
"Recent research provides evidence that one important difference between liberals and conservatives is their basic moral intuitions. These studies suggest that while liberals and conservatives respond similarly to considerations of harm/care and fairness (what Graham and Haidt call the “individualizing” foundations), conservatives also respond strongly to considerations of in-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not. Our study examined two alternative hypotheses for this difference—the first being that liberals cognitively override, and the alternative being that conservatives cognitively enhance, their binding foundation intuitions. Using self-regulation depletion and cognitive load tasks to compromise people's ability to monitor and regulate their automatic moral responses, we found support for the latter hypothesis—when cognitive resources were depleted/distracted, conservatives became more like liberals (de-prioritizing the binding foundations), rather than the other way around. This provides support for the view that conservatism is a form of motivated social cognition."<ref>[http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/JESP%20Role%20of%20Cognitive%20Resources%20(Publication).pdf Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 1007-1012.]</ref>
+
Finished in p. 352 first chapter.
  
−
This strength the idea that conservatives uses their self-regulation to be social? while the other say that implicit....
+
==Further readings==
−
 
+
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives], on TED.
−
here is an example that conservatives favor the state power, and there fore blame a situation (liberal tendency) when the police make misdeeds.<ref>[http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/Haditha.pdf Morgan, G. S., Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2010). When values and attributions collide: Liberals’ and conservatives’ values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1241-1254.]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
I think conservatives try to comply to society(system 1 and rACC.[[amygdala]]), while liberals try to comply to reason (system 2 and dACC/[[ACC]]).
 
−
 
 
−
'''[http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/styled-7/styled-16/index.html ideo-attribution effec]t''': Our current work in this area has been primarily focused on understanding the sources of what we call the “ideo-attribution effect,” that is, the tendency for liberals and conservatives to make different attributions for the causes of various social and personal problems. Specifically, conservatives tend to attribute poverty, crime, homelessness, AIDS, foreign aggression, and even obesity to causes internal to persons, whereas liberals tend to attribute the same phenomena more to situational factors.
 
−
 
 
−
This is probably due to [[amygdala]]/[[rACC]] and [[dACC]] tendencies, which causes the liberals to engage more in situational causes and conservatives to engage more in societal reasons.
 
−
 
 
−
==The causes in the light of brain research==
 
−
 
 
−
Jost at al, summarizing a 50 years of research on the causes of conservatism had suggested that the two main casus of conservatism are fear and a feel of urgent<ref>[http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.]</ref>. These findings where partly supported by new evidences that comes from the emerging field of political-brain research.
 
−
These findings show that there are some differences in the way brains of conservatives and liberals work. People with chronic state of conservatism are characterized by smaller anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and enlarged amygdala<ref>[http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.]</ref> <ref>[http://blog.psico.edu.uy/cibpsi/files/2011/04/brains.pdf Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current biology : CB, 21(8), 677–80. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017]</ref>.  The amygdala is involved social learning, and especially fear conditioning  <ref>LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Brain mechanisms of emotion and emotional learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2(2), 191–197. doi:10.1016/0959-4388(92)90011-9</ref><ref>LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629</ref>. People with larger amygdala volume correlates positively with both the size (the number of contacts a person has) and the social complexity (the number of different groups to which a person belongs)<ref>Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. C., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nature neuroscience, 14(2), 163–4. doi:10.1038/nn.2724</ref>. The other implications of enlarged amygdala are that conservatives having enlarged amygdala will be more sensitive to threat<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>. Conservatives detect threatening faces more easily, with less effort<ref>Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.</ref>.  Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals<ref>Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.</ref>.  This may explain the finding that Individuals with measurably higher physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support conservatives policies like defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War, whereas individuals displaying measurably lower physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor liberals politics such as foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control<ref>Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford. John R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2008). Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science, 321, 1667–1670.</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
The [[ACC]], which is more active in liberals, is involved in conflict detection<ref>Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(12), 539–546.</ref>, and it is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge when people are puzzled <ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2011). An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function: Option selection in hierarchical reinforcement learning. The Neural Basis of Motivational and Cognitive Control, 333–349.</ref><ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.</ref>.  Liberals having larger ACC and therefore we may expect that liberals are better in conflict detection. This suggestion was corroborated by a research that found that liberals reacts better to conflict detection, and their anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was more active during conflict detecting <ref>Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature neuroscience, 10(10), 1246–1247.</ref>. This may explain why on everage, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives <ref>Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological science, 23(2), 187–95. doi:10.1177/0956797611421206</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
On the other hand liberals seems to have lower ability to work in groups as Lakoff suggested (ref). He suggested that liberals should learn from conservatives how to make greater coalitions, but the reason liberals are porrer preformers at social gathering may be due to brain tendency having lower volume of amygdala, which is involved in social learning. And indeed, liberals are more trusting but have smaller social networks, while conservatives find faster threatening facial emotion and have larger social networks<ref>Vigil, J. M. (2010). Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 547–558. doi:10.1177/1368430209356930</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Having lower amygdala volume does not mean that liberals are not felling threat. They detect threat less easily and therefore are more trusting, but when they do detect threat they react as conservatives<ref>Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901–907. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.013</ref>. This may be explained by the finding that the Amygdala can be controlled by the ACC<ref>Etkin, A., Egner, T., Peraza, D. M., Kandel, E. R., & Hirsch, J. (2006). Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron, 51(6), 871–882.</ref>.  And as long as liberals do not recognize a threat they will be more engaged in learning through the ACC and it will suppress the amygdala, but when threat is recognized the ACC is turning-on the amygdala and more conservative style reactions will occur.
 
−
 
 
−
Some other research found that when engaging in risk conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala and liberals handle risk with the left insula<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>. The left insula is involved in warmth and painful sensations<ref>Stephani, C., Fernandez-Baca Vaca, G., Maciunas, R., Koubeissi, M., & Lüders, H. O. (2011). Functional neuroanatomy of the insular lobe. Brain structure & function, 216(2), 137–49. doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0296-3</ref>. This may imply that liberals will feel more pain when thinking on losing in risky conditions and therefore will be less ready to engage risk. This may explain why conservatives may favor war while liberals will try to find more peaceful solutions.
 
−
 
 
−
It seems that open-mindedness according to Cognitive Reflection Test is not correlated with [[Conservatives and Liberals|conservatism]]<ref>[http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/7/31/motivated-system-2-reasoning-experimental-evidence-its-signi.html Dan Kahan (2013), Motivated system 2 reasoning--experimental evidence & its significance for explaining political polarization - review]</ref>. Thous, Consevatives and liberals uses [[system 2]] in the same manner.
 
−
 
 
−
'''Conclusions''':
 
−
 
 
−
Conservatives uses the amygdala which is active in social learning and threat detection and handling and therefore are more social orinetd. Because every society has it won codes, conservative may tend to be more local-culuter oriented, and when they will engage different cultures and especialy very different cultures, they will be more un-knowing and therefore will feel more threathend. In General they feel more threat, and may prefer war over peace, because they feel less pain when evaluating the consequence.
 
−
 
 
−
Liberals are more intelligent and will try to solve social and non-social conflicts by thinking. They will avoid risks due to more sensitivity to pain and lost.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
Stop here
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
===Amygdala and ACC===
 
−
 
 
−
Jost at al, summerizing a 50 years of research on the causes of conservatism had suggested that the two main casus of conservatism are fear and a feel of urgent<ref>[http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.]</ref>. These finding where partly supported by new evidance from the emerging field of brain research. A chronic state of conservatism is characterized by smaller anterior cingulate cortex ([[ACC]]) and enlarged amygdala<ref>[http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.]</ref> <ref>[http://blog.psico.edu.uy/cibpsi/files/2011/04/brains.pdf Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current biology : CB, 21(8), 677–80. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017]</ref>. The Amygdala is involved emotional learning, and especially fear conditioning <ref>LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Brain mechanisms of emotion and emotional learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2(2), 191–197. doi:10.1016/0959-4388(92)90011-9</ref><ref>LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629</ref>.The [[ACC]] is active in conflict detection <ref>Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(12), 539–546.</ref>. And is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge after puzels <ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2011). An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function: Option selection in hierarchical reinforcement learning. The Neural Basis of Motivational and Cognitive Control, 333–349.</ref><ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Also it was found that conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala, while liberals deal the same tasks with the left insula<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
(Brain sections)
 
−
 
 
−
The amygdala volume correlates positively with both the size (the number of contacts a person has) and the complexity (the number of different groups to which a person belongs) of social networks <ref>Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. C., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nature neuroscience, 14(2), 163–4. doi:10.1038/nn.2724</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
(Insula)The left insula was fund to be connected to warmth and painful sensations <ref>Stephani, C., Fernandez-Baca Vaca, G., Maciunas, R., Koubeissi, M., & Lüders, H. O. (2011). Functional neuroanatomy of the insular lobe. Brain structure & function, 216(2), 137–49. doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0296-3</ref>. this suggest that conservatives are feeling more threat<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
It was found the liberals reacts better to conflict detection, and their anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was more active during conflict detecting <ref>Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature neuroscience, 10(10), 1246–1247.</ref>. 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
The Amygdala can be controlled by the rACC <ref>Etkin, A., Egner, T., Peraza, D. M., Kandel, E. R., & Hirsch, J. (2006). Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron, 51(6), 871–882.</ref>. 
 
−
 
 
−
(Non brain research)
 
−
The idea that threat is causing people to become more conservatives was further corroborated by an experiment that showed that under fear conditions, liberal students judge like conservative students<ref>Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009).
 
−
 
 
−
Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901–907. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.013</ref>. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals <ref>Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Individuals with measurably higher physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support conservatives policies like defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War, whereas individuals displaying measurably lower physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control.<ref>Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford. John R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2008). Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science, 321, 1667–1670.</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Liberals are more trusting but have smaller social networks, while conservatives find faster threatening facial emotion and have larger social networks<ref>Vigil, J. M. (2010). Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 547–558. doi:10.1177/1368430209356930</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Conservatives detect threatening faces more easly. With less stress<ref>Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
====Proposed Outcomes====
 
−
This strength that conservative learn more through social learning, and on threat, they will react more with the [[FFFF]] reaction.
 
−
 
 
−
Conservatives will prefer "conservative" decision (well established past decisions)
 
−
The [[ACC]] is turned off when there is enough past information for making a decision <ref>Domenech, P., & Dreher, J.-C. (2010). Decision threshold modulation in the human brain. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 30(43), 14305–17. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2371-10.2010</ref>. Therefore, people with lower volume of ACC have more "closured" decision making system, and therefore they will prefer "conservative" decisions.
 
−
 
 
−
Liberals will prefer less "group" prefernces and more intelgent solutions.
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
Stop here
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
More intelligent people tend to adopt liberal ideology<ref>Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33–57.</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly they adjust to liberal morals<ref>Graham, J., Englander, Z., Morris, J., Hawkins, C., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. (2012). Warning Bell: Liberals Implicitly Respond to Group Morality Before Rejecting it Explicitly.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Conservatives, is suggested, are more aware of social asspects, due to more learning through the amygdala, and therefore conform to society<ref>Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 1007–1012.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
All in all, conservative learn and react more to emotions through the amygdala, and may exhibt more aggresivnes toward threat, while liberals are less effective in the social filld, but are more effective in conflict detaction, thoughs create more non-social ineligible solutions. Liberals are more wise on the social level, while liberals more wise on the non-social level.
 
−
 
 
−
===Causes of Conservatism===
 
−
Chronic state of conservatism is characterized by smaller anterior cingulate cortex ([[ACC]]) and enlarged amygdala<ref>[http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.]</ref>. The ACC is used to control efforts and also rostral ACC is active in learning intuitively social behaviors. if having small volume of the ACC, people will react more impulsively, and will have difficulty to understand social interactions. This will cause them to perceive unfamiliar people with less understanding and therefore with more mistrust.
 
−
 
 
−
Conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala, while liberals deal the same tasks with the lef insula. this sugest that conservatives are feeling more threat<ref>Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P. (2013). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. PloS one, 8(2), e52970.</ref>.The insula is thought to be involve in risk prediction error<ref>[http://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/11/2745.long Preuschoff, K., Quartz, S. R., & Bossaerts, P. (2008). Human insula activation reflects risk prediction errors as well as risk. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(11), 2745–2752.]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Conservative statments make you stop: "Zamboni et al. (2009) found that, regardless of participants’ own political orientation, the processing of conservative statements was associated with greater activity in the right dlPFC—a brain region that is associated with withdrawal motivation, negative affect, and response inhibition in prior research (e.g., Aron et al. 2004; Davidson 1992; Harmon-Jones 2003). Although this finding may have multiple interpretations, one could speculate that thinking about more conservative positions elicited a withdrawaloriented response among these participants, which would be consistent with responses to disgusting or threatening stimuli (cf. Helzer and Pizarro 2011; Terrizzi et al. 2010).
 
−
This pattern of activation was unrelated to the extremity or level of abstraction of political statements" from [http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Amodio 2012]
 
−
 
 
−
===Causes of Liberalism===
 
−
 
 
−
Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent<ref>[http://secure.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33-57.]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly the adjust to liberal morals<ref>[http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=616064002106075065123023116022113121037016025093044007014073023026003097074068114120028062030124045033010026074088083098112122046083078061083099070027073092117028094010018046069064071119098113065118100088&EXT=pdf Graham, J., Englander, Z., Morris, J., Hawkins, C., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. (2012). Warning Bell: Liberals Implicitly Respond to Group Morality Before Rejecting it Explicitly. Available at SSRN.]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
it seems that conservatives uses more [system 1] while liberals uses more of [system 2].
 
−
 
 
−
Greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related [[ACC|anterior cingulate activity]], suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern<ref>[http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Publications_files/Amodio_etal_2007_NatureNeuro.pdf Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature neuroscience, 10(10), 1246-1247.]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives<ref>Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901-907.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
==More==
 
−
===Libertanism===
 
−
Libertarians have less social bonding and they value most liberty and self creativity<ref>Iyer R, Koleva S, Graham J, Ditto P, Haidt J (2012) Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians. PLoS ONE 7(8): e42366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042366</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===Power Distance Index===
 
−
 
 
−
The power distance index (PDI), describes how anequivlante sharing of power is accepted as legitimate. see [http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/ this site], and see how low Israel is on this scale. This article calim that PDI is important factor for grouth<ref>[http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~ygorodni/GorodnichenkoRoland_AEAPP.pdf Gorodnichenko, Yuriy, and Gerard Roland. "Which dimensions of culture matter for long-run growth?." The American Economic Review 101.3 (2011): 492-498.]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===Conservatives and God Complex===
 
−
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/he/tim_harford.html Good complex et TED] WOW! write how he presuase, how Archy works to presuase people, and The god complex in conservatives. and the greatnes in liberal trial and error, and the chalngs he put before schools and politicians.
 
−
 
 
−
(Fear and need for certainty,  fits brain research.... and show how it fits)
 
−
===Why liberals are socialists===
 
−
 
 
−
Th0: Abstract-Liberals have poor social intuitive understanding probably due to small volume of [[rACC]], and they have trouble to work at "productive jobs". Therefore they will prefer to avoid community help for the poor, and will prefer to let the government do the help for the poor. Thy will also resist capitalism, because capitalism emphasize "productivity", and therefore capitalism is inhospitable to liberals. Mild-Conservatives are more "productive" and are more closed-communities oriented; therefore they will prefer capitalism and self-helping communities. As people become more conservatives they more closed minded, adhere more to the "truth" and are more critical, their communities start to disintegrate. They will shift to "strong leadership" regimes like Theocratic regime or nationalistic regime. These regimes are usually working on "Justice" and much less on "Benevolence". [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 00:03, 26 December 2012 (IST)
 
−
 
 
−
===Extremism===
 
−
Hadit suggest that extremism is caused by addiction to the reward in [[ventral stratium]] that people get whenever they are prove to be right (Hadit p. 100-103)
 
−
 
 
−
===Media influance on Conservatives, Liberas and Moderates===
 
−
 
 
−
Zaller’s (1992)<ref>Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref> reason-accept-sample model of public opinion hypothesizes that politi- cally knowledgeable individuals who have a liberal or conservative ideological bias can effectively filter out messages contrary to their ideology. Moderates and persons lacking political expertise fail to apply such filters and develop views representative of the larger media diet they consume.
 
−
 
 
−
===Other===
 
−
I suspect that the NMDA have something to do with [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109124227.htm liberalsem-conservatism]
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 00:57, 31 May 2015

Overview of the theory of conservatives and liberals


Conservatism and Liberalism is a wide phenomena which presnt itslef in very divers areas of social life. It is well knowen that there are some who behave in a conservative way, and some in liberal way. Although it is well knowen phenomena, it was hard to charctrized precisly the properties of liberals and conservatives, and it is stil not very well established, what are the causes of liberalism and conservatism.

In this papae I will make an effort to give a coherent view of the cartrization of the lib-con phenomena, and will try to give also a coherent mechnism for the causes of lib-con, based on recent years research in psychology and neurocognitive.

Letriture review

Charectristics of Lib-Con

Liberalism and conservatism (LibCon) is a phrsae taken form the political scene, but it may apply to commerce, fashion and other social attitudes. In commerce, liberals, or early adopters, are people who tend to buy the newst products, while conservatives look for well tested products, who are old-fashiond[1]. Although the phenomena is well knowen, It's cahrectarisitc are buffleing. A well knowen attempt to the phenomena was done by Lakoff[2]. Lakoff put liberals on the carring and empathic moral and the conservatives on the strong moral, which divide the world in to good and evil.

The charectaristics of conservatives[3]

Causes of Lib-Con

Conservatives are more fearful, while liberals are more calm[4]. Conservatives percives thetening faces as more threatning[5].

There is a connection between liberalism and intelegence[6].

self motivation for conservatism

conservatism can be caused by:

  • FFFF
  • Important of actions and time presure, which sustaning information can be too costly[7][8][9][10][11][12]
    • Ambiant noise (White noise)[13]
    • Mental fatigue (Ego deplition)[14]
    • alcohol intoxication[15]
  • Low need for cognition
  • Personal need for structure[16])and there is a scale for cognitive closure NFCS[17]
    • Prefernce for order and sturcture.
    • Emotional discomfort associated with amvbigiuty (it can be domain specific and FFFF related. Tal Yaron)).
    • Impetiante and impolsivity with regard to decision making.
    • Desire for security and predictability.
    • Colsed-mindnessnes.

The Theory of RWA (Right-Wing Authoritarian): Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it. [18]. In it start the reserchers[19], proposed that harsh parenting styles brought on by economic hardship led entire generations to repress hostility toward authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated deference and idealization of authority and tendencies to blame societal scapegoats and punish deviants.Altemeyer charcrized RWA as (p.148)[20]:

  • “a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate”;
  • “a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, whichis perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities”; and
  • “a high degree of adherence to the social conventions which are perceived to be endorsed by society” .


Need for closure comply to regin idealogy[21][22]. But also when a need for closure is felt, also left-wing ideologies will become regid[23]. All in all, people with high need for closure will prefer rigid, construct and well defined theories[24].

Regulatory Focus Theory"(High demends, critisicem): When one has aspirations (ideals) and on the other hand responsibilites (oughts), and his parenting role models asked him to acomplish high goals, but was focused on saftey, avoding of negative outcomes combined with punishment, the child will grow up to be with strong need for closure, while holding, high ideas. This will be the base for some of the left-wing illiblerals ideologies[25][26].

Terror Management Theory[27]: fear of death may be a cause for political conservatism[28], and may motivate conservatism[29][30][31].Greenberg at al, suggested that TMT will no lead to conservatism, but just to strengthening of basic values[32].

Just world theory: The just-world hypothesis (or just-world fallacy) is the cognitive bias that all human actions eventually yield morally fair and fitting consequences, so that, ultimately: noble actions are duly rewarded and evil actions are duly punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to, or expect consequences as the result of, an unspecified power that restores moral balance; the fallacy is that this implies (often unintentionally) the existence of such a power in terms of some cosmic force of justice, desert, stability, or order in the universe.

The fallacy popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech, which often imply a negative reprisal of justice, such as: "You got what was coming to you," "What goes around comes around," and "You reap what you sow." This phenomenon of this fallacy has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s[33]. Since that time, research has continued, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just world beliefs[34].

Group motivation for conservatism

Social Dominance Theory (SDO): According to social dominance theory, human societies strive to minimize group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify the hegemony of some groups over others[35][36][37][38][39]. They achive it by legitmizing myths like (a) parental myth, in which the dominent group is the only one capable of mangment of the large group. (b)"reciprocal myth", in which every group should take it's place, and the dominante group shoul lead. (c) Sacred myth, which give dominence to one group over others by the authourity of God[40].

SDO and RWA compose of 50% of the statisitcal varience of prejudice and athnocentrism, which is large part of the affectors (Altemeyer 1998 p. 47). SDO is more dominante and RWA is more submissive[41]. as Jost et al put it "One can therefore infer that the most inexorable right-wingers are those who are motivated simultaneously by fear and aggression"[42].

Main Causes of Conservatism

The causes of conservatism according to Jost et al (2003)
The causes of conservatism according to Tal Yaron (2012)

"Theoretical and empirical considerations lead us to conclude that virtually all of the above motives originate in psychological attempts to manage uncertainty and fear[43]."These, in turn, are inherently related to the two core aspects of conservative thought mentioned earlier—resistance to change and the endorsement of inequality".Thus, epistemic needs affect the style and manner by which individuals seek to overcome uncertainty and the fear of the unknown[44][45][46][47]. Existential motives, too, involve a desire for certainty and security that is associated with resisting rather than fostering change, and is highly corolated for need for certenty[48][49].

Reserch

Evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with:

  • mental rigidity and closed-mindedness - The most contributng factor is mental rigidty[50][51][52][53]. Research on cognitive sophistication and integrative complexity provides the soundest basis for evaluating claims linking epistemic motivation to political ideology[54]. Recent work on personal need for structure[55] and the need for cognitive closure[56] helps to complete the picture.
    • increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity - The right wingers are much more mentaly rigid (dogmatice) the left-wing extremists [57], according to the reserch in the field[58][59][60]. Right wingers, Modrate and extrem, are much more intolrate to ambiguty[61].
    • decreased cognitive complexity - Left-wingers have more cognitive complexity the right-wingers. Modrates in both wings, have more complexity then extrimists[62], but these results are not conclusive.
    • decreased openness to experience
    • uncertainty avoidance: r=.34 p<0.0001 to conservatism (Jost et al. 2003)
    • personal needs for order and structure
    • need for cognitive closure
  • lowered self-esteem
  • fear, anger, and aggression
  • pessimism, disgust, and contempt
  • loss prevention
  • fear of death
  • threat arising from social and economic deprivation
  • threat to the stability ofthe social system


Finished in p. 352 first chapter.

Further readings

References

  1. ↑ Rogers Everett M., 1962,Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press of Glencoe, Macmillan Company
  2. ↑ Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust ,George Lakoff, 1995
  3. ↑ Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jost et al. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375
  4. ↑ Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits, 2008, Hibbing et al. Science (Hebrew summery)
  5. ↑ JM. Vigil (2008) Facial Expression Processing Varies with Political Affiliation, Nature
  6. ↑ The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind Dana R. Carney, John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling3, Jeff Potter4, Political Psychology, Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 807–840, December 2008
  7. ↑ A Dynamic and Stochastic Theory of Choice, Response Time, and Confidence (review in Hebrew)
  8. ↑ A paper about time and change of attitude for learning
  9. ↑ Author, 1990 , Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making
  10. ↑ *Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp.91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  11. ↑ Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19,448–468.
  12. ↑ Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383–393.
  13. ↑ Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.
  14. ↑ Webster, D. M., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). On leaping to conclusions when feeling tired: Mental fatigue effects on impressional primacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 181–195.
  15. ↑ Webster, D. M. (1994). Groups under the influence: Need for closure effects on the use of shared and unique information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.
  16. ↑ Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., & O’Brien, N. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544–555.
  17. ↑ Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
  18. ↑ Stenner, Karen (2009). "Three Kinds of “Conservatism". Psychological Inquiry: 142-159
  19. ↑ Adomo, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswilc, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
  20. ↑ Altemeyer, R. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University ofManitoba Press.
  21. ↑ Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.),Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  22. ↑ Golec, A. (2001, July). Need for cognitive closure and political conservatism: Studies on the nature of the relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Cuernavaca, Mexico.
  23. ↑ *Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  24. ↑ Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. New York: Plenum.
  25. ↑ Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
  26. ↑ Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as amotivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–45.
  27. ↑ Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press
  28. ↑ Wilson, 0. D. (l973). The temperamental basis of attitudes. In 0. D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (pp. 187—196). London: Academic Press
  29. ↑ Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, 5. (1986). The causes and consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror management theory.In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189—207). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  30. ↑ Greenberg, 3., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory: II. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308—318.
  31. ↑ Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Lyon,D.(1989). Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 68 1—690.
  32. ↑ Greenberg, 3., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1992). Terror management and tolerance: Does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one’s worldview? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 212—220.
  33. ↑ Lerner, M.J. & Montada, L. (1998). An Overview: Advances in Belief in a Just World Theory and Methods, in Leo Montada & M.J. Lerner (Eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World (1–7). Plenum Press: New York
  34. ↑ Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences; 34: 795–817.
  35. ↑ Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 191—263.
  36. ↑ Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.
  37. ↑ Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J.McGuire (lids.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183—219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press
  38. ↑ Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press
  39. ↑ Sidanius, J., Prattu, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476—490.
  40. ↑ Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J.McGuire (lids.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183—219)(look at pp. 207-209).Durham, NC: Duke University Press
  41. ↑ “Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47—91). New York: Academic Press. in p.75
  42. ↑ John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339—375 (p. 350. left col buttom)
  43. ↑ John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339—375 (p. 351. left col middle)
  44. ↑ Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay episremics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. New York: Plenum.
  45. ↑ Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: BasicBooks. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  46. ↑ Sorrentino, R. M., & Runey, C. I. R. (2000). The uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing the unknown. Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis
  47. ↑ Wilson, 0. D. (lid.). (l973). The psychology of conservatism. London: Academic Press
  48. ↑ Dechesne, M., Janssen, J., & van Knippenberg, A. (2000). Derogation and distancing as terror managementstrategies: The moderating role of need for closure and permeability of group boundaries. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79, 923—932.
  49. ↑ McGregor, I., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, 1. 0., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). Compensatory conviction in the face of personal uncertainty: Going to extremes and being oneself. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 80, 472—488.
  50. ↑ Adorno et al., 1950, in Jost 2003
  51. ↑ Rokeach, 1960 Jost 2003
  52. ↑ Wilson 1973c Jost 2003
  53. ↑ Christie 1954 Jost 2003
  54. ↑ (e.g., Gruenfeld, 1995; Sidanius, 1985, 1988; Tetlock, 1983, 1984) in Jost 2003
  55. ↑ Schaller et al., 1995, in Jost2003
  56. ↑ D. M. Webster & Kruglanski, 1994 in Jost2003
  57. ↑ Barker, E. N. (1963). Authoritarianism of the political right, center, and left. Journal of Social Issues, 19, 63—74.
  58. ↑ Altemeyer (1981, 1998) in Jost2003
  59. ↑ Billig (1984) in Jost 2003
  60. ↑ s (Barker, 1963; Christie, 1991; Elms, 1969; Pettigrew, 1958; Rokeach, 1960; Smithers & Lobley, 1978; Stacey & Green, 1971) in Jost 2003
  61. ↑ See Jost 2003, p. 353
  62. ↑ Jost 2003 p. 353
Retrieved from "http://www.delib.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conservatives_and_Liberals&oldid=2497"