Actions

Difference between revisions of "Conservatives and Liberals"

From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki

(Haidt Moral Foundations Theory)
(Haidt Moral Foundations Theory)
Line 184: Line 184:
  
 
|-
 
|-
| ||Val:Fairness||Val:defend from harm||Val:Liberty
+
| ||Val:Fairness||Val:defend from harm||Val:Liberty||Val: Sexual purity
 
|-
 
|-
|Libertinism||style = "background-color:green;"|what you invest is what you get.||style = "background-color:orange;"|-||style = "background-color:green;"|Because they have difficulties managing themselves in society they appreciate that nobody will try to control them  
+
|Libertinism||style = "background-color:green;"|what you invest is what you get.||style = "background-color:orange;"|-||style = "background-color:green;"|Because they have difficulties managing themselves in society they appreciate that nobody will try to control them||style = "background-color:orange;"|Freedom of sex
 
|-
 
|-
|Liberalism||style = "background-color:green;"|there is abundance of resources so we can help the poor get better, and also because liberals are lazy they favor state support for the weak.||style = "background-color:green;"|They do not see threat to the group so they do not see reason not to protect the weak of other groups||style = "background-color:green;"|due to their higher education they recognize  cooperative control, and fight against it
+
|Liberalism||style = "background-color:green;"|there is abundance of resources so we can help the poor get better, and also because liberals are lazy they favor state support for the weak.||style = "background-color:green;"|They do not see threat to the group so they do not see reason not to protect the weak of other groups||style = "background-color:green;"|due to their higher education they recognize  cooperative control, and fight against it||style = "background-color:orange;"|When there is abondance, every body can do what ever he wants, especially if will not get pregnant due to the pills.
 
|-
 
|-
|Conservatism||style = "background-color:green;"|only hard work will bring resources. everybody should work and not cheat on the group||style = "background-color:green;"|if the people are not subordinate, or there is a reason for the king to punish, then it is OK to heart some||style = "background-color:green;"|Liberty under the group, that protect us, but fight a government that take taxes to support the weak (the leaches)
+
|Conservatism||style = "background-color:green;"|only hard work will bring resources. everybody should work and not cheat on the group||style = "background-color:green;"|if the people are not subordinate, or there is a reason for the king to punish, then it is OK to heart some||style = "background-color:green;"|Liberty under the group, that protect us, but fight a government that take taxes to support the weak (the leaches)||style = "background-color:green;"|Sexual arrousal cause people to look for diversity and many partners. This will cause the trust of the family to break and the group to break. people with a lot of desires can not control his desires and will take more resources from the group.
 
|}
 
|}
  

Revision as of 16:52, 16 July 2013

Overview of the theory of conservatives and liberals


Overview of the theory of conservatives and liberals


Conservatism and Liberalism in the context of deliberation is states of mind that create different reaction to deliberation. 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[1]. Conservatism is driving people to group more closely[2]. 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.

Recently I have seen that Liberals and Conservatives can also be looked at as Thinkers and Doers

See also: Conservatives and Liberals: literature review

description of liberalism and conservatism

"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."[3]

Liberals are more moved by harm then conservatives and much more then libertants (see Haidt, 2102, Righteous in mind p. 212).

Conservative Society

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.

Observed: Doron Tzur, 2013, private talks.; Tal Yaron, establishing the forum in Kedumim 2007.

Conservatives show more anger towards criminals[4]

high levels proposed causes of liberalism and conservatism

Causes of conservatism

Enviromental threat elvate conservatism[5]

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[6]. 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[7].

Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals[8]

priming of cleanses make people more conservatives[9]

"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."[10]

This strength the idea that conservatives uses their self-regulation to be social? while the other say that implicit....

here is an example that conservatives favor the state power, and there fore blame a situation (liberal tendency) when the police make misdeeds.[11]

I think conservatives try to comply to society(system 1 and rACC), while liberals try to comply to reason (system 2 and dACC).

ideo-attribution effect: 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 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[12]. 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[13] [14]. The amygdala is involved social learning, and especially fear conditioning [15][16]. 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)[17]. The other implications of enlarged amygdala are that conservatives having enlarged amygdala will be more sensitive to threat[18]. Conservatives detect threatening faces more easily, with less effort[19]. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals[20]. 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[21].

The ACC, which is more active in liberals, is involved in conflict detection[22], and it is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge when people are puzzled [23][24]. 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 [25]. This may explain why on everage, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives [26].

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[27].

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[28]. This may be explained by the finding that the Amygdala can be controlled by the ACC[29]. 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[30]. The left insula is involved in warmth and painful sensations[31]. 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.

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[32]. 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[33] [34]. The Amygdala is involved emotional learning, and especially fear conditioning [35][36].The ACC is active in conflict detection [37]. And is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge after puzels [38][39].

Also it was found that conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala, while liberals deal the same tasks with the left insula[40].

(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 [41].


(Insula)The left insula was fund to be connected to warmth and painful sensations [42]. this suggest that conservatives are feeling more threat[43].

It was found the liberals reacts better to conflict detection, and their anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was more active during conflict detecting [44].


The Amygdala can be controlled by the rACC [45].

(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[46]. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals [47].

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.[48].

Liberals are more trusting but have smaller social networks, while conservatives find faster threatening facial emotion and have larger social networks[49].

Conservatives detect threatening faces more easly. With less stress[50].


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 [51]. 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[52].



Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly they adjust to liberal morals[53]

Conservatives, is suggested, are more aware of social asspects, due to more learning through the amygdala, and therefore conform to society[54]

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[55]. 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[56].

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 Amodio 2012

Causes of Liberalism

Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent[57]

Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly the adjust to liberal morals[58]

it seems that conservatives uses more [system 1] while liberals uses more of [system 2].

Greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern[59].

Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives[60]

More

Libertanism

Libertarians have less social bonding and they value most liberty and self creativity[61]

Power Distance Index

The power distance index (PDI), describes how anequivlante sharing of power is accepted as legitimate. see this site, and see how low Israel is on this scale. This article calim that PDI is important factor for grouth[62]

Conservatives and God Complex

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". 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)

Haidt Moral Foundations Theory

Based on Haidt, 2012, Righteous in Mind, and my hypothesis.

Haidt Moral Foundations Theory, with causes
Cause Brain Mechanisms Val:Loyalty Val:Authority Val:Purity
Libertanism Poor social skills dACC deficiency Not important against. they do not see need for somebody to control them. No need for purity because they do not detect dangour from slime.
Liberalism Prosperity and abundance of resources. k-selection insula not important because they do not detect danger to group No need for, because ther is plenty for all, and we can mange withou a leader or a boss. less need for purity, because that in open space when there is plenty of ground, there are less debases.
Conservatism threat to the group, need for results. r-selection more FFFF and amygdala Most important, so the group can stay together and fight together, or work together for the same perpose. There is a great need for hierarchy so the group can work efficiently. In a gatherings there are a lot of diseases, so you need more purity and you are afraid of strangers and people that looks seek.
Val:Fairness Val:defend from harm Val:Liberty Val: Sexual purity
Libertinism what you invest is what you get. - Because they have difficulties managing themselves in society they appreciate that nobody will try to control them Freedom of sex
Liberalism there is abundance of resources so we can help the poor get better, and also because liberals are lazy they favor state support for the weak. They do not see threat to the group so they do not see reason not to protect the weak of other groups due to their higher education they recognize cooperative control, and fight against it When there is abondance, every body can do what ever he wants, especially if will not get pregnant due to the pills.
Conservatism only hard work will bring resources. everybody should work and not cheat on the group if the people are not subordinate, or there is a reason for the king to punish, then it is OK to heart some Liberty under the group, that protect us, but fight a government that take taxes to support the weak (the leaches) Sexual arrousal cause people to look for diversity and many partners. This will cause the trust of the family to break and the group to break. people with a lot of desires can not control his desires and will take more resources from the group.

Other

I suspect that the NMDA have something to do with liberalsem-conservatism

References

  1. 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.
  2. Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust. Social Research, 62(2), 177–213.
  3. 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.
  4. Fodor, Wick, Hartsen, & Preve, 2008
  5. 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
  6. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
  7. 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
  8. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714-725.
  9. Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). Dirty liberals!: Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517-522.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
  13. Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.
  20. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
  33. Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.
  51. 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
  52. Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33–57.
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.
  56. 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.
  57. Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33-57.
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. 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
  62. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy, and Gerard Roland. "Which dimensions of culture matter for long-run growth?." The American Economic Review 101.3 (2011): 492-498.