tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/political-psychology-6764/articlesPolitical psychology – The Conversation2024-01-02T16:50:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2189492024-01-02T16:50:04Z2024-01-02T16:50:04ZWhy have authoritarianism and libertarianism merged? A political psychologist on ‘the vulnerability of the modern self’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564551/original/file-20231208-29-yahofn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=290%2C121%2C7790%2C4022&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The so-called Qanon shaman, Jacob Chansley, at the Capitol riot. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Johnny Silvercloud</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Logically, authoritarianism and libertarianism are contradictory. Supporters of authoritarian leaders share a state of mind in which they take direction from an idealised figurehead and closely identify with the group which that leader represents. To be libertarian is to see the freedom of the individual as the supreme principle of politics. It is core to the economics and politics of neo-liberalism, as well as to some bohemian counter-cultures. </p>
<p>As a state of mind, libertarianism is superficially the opposite of authoritarianism. Identification with the leader or group is anathema and all forms of authority are regarded with suspicion. Instead the ideal is to experience oneself as a self-contained, free agent. </p>
<p>Yet there is a history of these two outlooks being intertwined. Consider Donald Trump, whose re-election in 2024 would be seen by many as adding to the international rise of authoritarianism. </p>
<p><a href="https://unherd.com/2023/12/why-all-this-trump-hysteria/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3">Others</a> might see him as insufficiently focused to be an effective authoritarian leader, but it’s not difficult to imagine him governing by executive order, and he has successfully sought an authoritarian relationship with his followers. He is an object of idealisation and a source of “truth” for the community of followers he purports to represent.</p>
<p>Yet at the same time, in his rhetoric and his persona of predatory freewheeler, in his wealth and indifference to others, Trump offers a hyper-realisation of a certain kind of individualistic freedom.</p>
<p>Trumpism’s fusion of the authoritarian and the libertarian was embodied in the January 6 attack in Washington DC. The insurgents who stormed the Capitol that day passionately wanted to install Trump as an autocratic leader. He had not, after all, won a democratic election.</p>
<p>But these people were also conducting a carnivalesque assertion of their individual rights, as they defined them, to attack the American state. Among them were followers of the bizarre conspiracy theory QAnon, who lionised Trump as the heroic authority figure secretly leading the fightback against a child-torturing cabal of elites. </p>
<p>Alongside them were the <a href="https://theconversation.com/proud-boys-members-convicted-of-seditious-conspiracy-3-essential-reads-on-the-group-and-right-wing-extremist-white-nationalism-205094">Proud Boys</a>, whose misty libertarianism is paired with a proto-authoritarian commitment to politics as violence.</p>
<h2>New age meets anti-vax</h2>
<p>Conspiracy theories are also involved in other recent examples of authoritarian-libertarian hybridity. Beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines (or lockdowns, or the virus itself) were attempts by a malevolent power to attack or control us were fuelled by a growing army of conspiracists. But they were also facilitated by libertarian ideologies which rationalise suspicion of and antipathy towards authority of all sorts – and support refusals to comply with public health measures. </p>
<p>In the UK, some small towns and rural areas have seen an influx of people involved in a variety of pursuits – arts and crafts, alternative medicine and other “wellness” practices, spirituality and mysticism. Research is lacking but a recent <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssl">BBC investigation</a> in the English town of Totnes showed how this can create a strong “alternative” ethos in which soft, hippie-ish forms of libertarianism are prominent – and very hospitable to conspiracism.</p>
<p>One might have thought that Totnes and some other towns like it would be the last places we’d find sympathy for authoritarian politics. However, the BBC investigation showed that although there may be no single dominant leader at work, new age anti-authority sentiments can morph into intolerance and hard-edged demands for retribution against the people seen as orchestrating vaccinations and lockdowns.</p>
<p>This is reflected in some COVID conspiracists calling for those who led the public health response to be tried at <a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/98809">“Nuremberg 2.0”</a>, a special court where they should face the death penalty. </p>
<p>When we remember that a virulent sense of grievance against an enemy or oppressor who must be punished is a regular feature of authoritarian culture, we start to see how the dividing lines between the libertarian mindset and the authoritarian perspective have blurred around COVID.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-about-the-pandemic-are-spreading-offline-as-well-as-through-social-media-167418">Conspiracy theories about the pandemic are spreading offline as well as through social media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A <a href="https://savanta.com/knowledge-centre/published-polls/conspiracy-poll-kings-college-london-13-june-2023/">disturbing survey</a> conducted earlier this year for King’s College London even found that 23% of the sample would be prepared to take to the streets in support of a “deep state” conspiracy theory. And of that group, 60% believed the use of violence in the name of such a movement would be justified. </p>
<h2>Two responses to the same anxiety</h2>
<p>A psychological approach can help us to understand the dynamics of this puzzling fusion. As <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Escape-Freedom-Erich-Fromm-ebook/dp/B00BPJOC7W/ref=sr_1_6?crid=1N6JLLNQVVBYU&keywords=erich+fromm&qid=1702035192&s=books&sprefix=erich+from%2Cstripbooks%2C192&sr=1-6">Erich Fromm</a> and others have shown, our ideological affinities are linked to unconscious structures of feeling. </p>
<p>At this level, authoritarianism and libertarianism are the interchangeable products of the same underlying psychological difficulty: the <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-61510-9_41-1">vulnerability of the modern self</a>.</p>
<p>Authoritarian political movements offer a sense of belonging to a collective, and of being protected by its strong leader. This may be completely illusory, but it nonetheless provides a sense of safety in a world of threatening change and risk. As individuals, we are vulnerable to feeling powerless and abandoned. As a group, we are safe.</p>
<p>Libertarianism, in contrast, proceeds from the illusion that as individuals we are fundamentally self-sufficient. We are independent of others and don’t need protection from authorities. This fantasy of freedom, like the authoritarian fantasy of the ideal leader, also generates a sense of invulnerability for those who believe in it.</p>
<p>Both outlooks serve to protect against the potentially overwhelming sense of being in a society on which we depend but which we feel we cannot trust. While politically divergent, they are psychologically equivalent. Both are ways for the vulnerable self to ward off existential anxieties. There is therefore a kind of belt-and-braces logic in toggling between them or even occupying both positions simultaneously.</p>
<p>In any specific context, authoritarianism is more likely to have the necessary focus and organisation to prevail. But its hybrid fusion with libertarianism will have broadened its support base by seducing people with anti-authority impulses.</p>
<p>And as things currently stand, we’re at risk of seeing increasing polarisation between, on one hand, this anxiety-driven, defensive form of combined politics, and on the other, efforts to preserve reality-based, non-defensive modes of political discourse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218949/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry Richards does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is now not uncommon to find people supporting leaders like Donald Trump while insisting the state refrains from intervening in their lives.Barry Richards, Emeritus Professor of Political Psychology, Bournemouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1491322020-11-09T13:14:37Z2020-11-09T13:14:37ZConservatives value personal stories more than liberals do when evaluating scientific evidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367850/original/file-20201105-22-11gidpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=98%2C0%2C5892%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When science and anecdote share a podium, you must decide how to value each.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/director-of-the-national-institute-of-allergy-and-news-photo/1208907352">Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Conservatives tend to see expert evidence and personal experience as more equally legitimate than liberals, who put a lot more weight on the scientific perspective, according to our new study <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12706">published in the journal Political Psychology</a>.</p>
<p>Our findings add nuance to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-conservatives.html">a common claim</a> that conservatives want to hear “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/aug/04/both-sides-of-the-climate-change-debate-how-bad-we-think-it-is-and-how-bad-it-really-is">both sides</a>” of arguments, even for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/us/politicized-scholars-put-evolution-on-the-defensive.html">settled science</a> that’s not really up for debate. </p>
<p>We asked 913 American adults to read an excerpt from an article debunking a common misconception, such as the existence of “lucky streaks” in games of chance. The article quoted a scientist explaining why people hold the misconception – for instance, people tend to see patterns in random data. The article also included a dissenting voice that drew from personal experience – such as someone claiming to have seen lucky streaks firsthand.</p>
<p>Our participants read one of two versions of the article. One version presented the dissenting voice as a quote from someone with relevant professional experience but no scientific expertise, such as a casino manager. In the other version, the dissenting opinion was a comment at the bottom from a random previous participant in our study who also disagreed with the scientist but had no clearly relevant expertise – analogous to a random poster in the comment section of an online article. </p>
<p>Though both liberals and conservatives tended to see the researcher as more legitimate overall, conservatives see less of a difference in legitimacy between the expert and the dissenter.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Looking at both our studies together, while about three-quarters of liberals rated the researcher as more legitimate, just over half of conservatives did. Additionally, about two-thirds of those who favored the anecdotal voice were conservative. Our data also showed that conservatives’ tendency to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011">trust their intuitions</a> accounted for the ideological split.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">Other studies</a> of a scientific ideological divide have focused on politicized issues like climate change, where conservatives, who are more likely to oppose regulation, may believe they have something to lose if policies to curb climate change are implemented. By using apolitical topics in our studies, we’ve shown that science denial isn’t just a matter of self-interest.</p>
<p>In stripping away political interest, we have revealed something more basic about how conservatives and liberals differ in the ways they interact with evidence. Conservatives are more likely to see intuitive, direct experience as legitimate. Scientific evidence, then, may become just another viewpoint. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="two women talking and walking on the sidewalk, one with a mask on" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For some people, a personal anecdote can be as influential as a science-backed public message.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/woman-holds-her-mask-while-talking-to-a-woman-wearing-a-news-photo/1254914571">Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though we conducted these studies in 2018 before the pandemic, they help explain some of the ideological reactions to it in the U.S.</p>
<p>Among conservatives especially, the idea that the pandemic itself is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/03/18/u-s-public-sees-multiple-threats-from-the-coronavirus-and-concerns-are-growing/">not a major threat</a> can hold as long as there’s personal evidence on offer that supports that view. President Donald Trump’s recovery from COVID-19 and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/06/trump-says-dont-be-afraid-of-covid-thats-easy-for-him-to-say">his assertion</a> based on his own experience that the disease is not so bad would have bolstered this belief. Recommendations from researchers to wear masks can remain mere suggestions so long as the court of public opinion is still undecided.</p>
<h2>What other research is being done</h2>
<p>Social scientists are already documenting ideological reactions to the pandemic that fit our findings. For example, many conservatives see the coronavirus as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620940539">less of a threat and are more susceptible to misinformation</a>. They also tend to see <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/711834">preventive efforts as less effective</a>. Our studies suggest these views will continue to proliferate as long as anecdotal experience conflicts with scientific expertise.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>An individual’s understanding of scientific evidence depends on more than just his or her political ideology. Basic science literacy also plays a role.</p>
<p>The pandemic has forced people to confront how hard it is to understand the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/tell-me-what-to-do-please-even-experts-struggle-with-coronavirus-unknowns/2020/05/25/e11f9870-9d08-11ea-ad09-8da7ec214672_story.html">uncertainty inherent in many scientific estimates</a>. Even liberals who are initially more sympathetic to science information might find their confidence in public health messages tested if these messages waver and evolve. </p>
<p>As such, we expect future research will focus on how health officials can most effectively <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870">communicate scientific uncertainty</a> to the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149132/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How much weight would you put on a scientist’s expertise versus the opinion of a random stranger? People on either end of the political spectrum decide differently what seems true.Randy Stein, Assistant Professor of Marketing, California State Polytechnic University, PomonaAlexander Swan, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Eureka CollegeMichelle Sarraf, Master's Student in Economics, California State Polytechnic University, PomonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1157852019-05-01T06:00:33Z2019-05-01T06:00:33ZCalling Brexit a national ‘humiliation’ fuels division – political psychologist<p>After the drama of the first months of 2019, it’s perhaps a good moment to step back a little and consider the division in society that has been exposed and deepened by Brexit. Which aspects of the whole saga have been most toxic, emotionally, and are most likely to get in the way of any later process of reconciliation?</p>
<p>There has been growing awareness of the danger inherent in the use of words such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/29/brexit-betrayal-myth-hardcore-brexiters">“betrayal”</a>, “treachery” and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anna-soubry-brexit-independent-group-death-threats-a8834321.html">“traitor”</a>. As well as insulting and provoking the politicians at whom these words are aimed, this most condemnatory language invites and legitimates the expression of violent hatred.</p>
<p>More recently, the theme of humiliation has become prominent. We are told that as the UK continues to fail to agree on a Brexit deal, it is being humiliated in front of the world. Any image of Britain as a settled and dignified nation has been destroyed by this calamity.</p>
<p>An increasingly influential body of psychological theory – developed in, for example, the works of <a href="https://www.vamikvolkan.net/en/">Vamik Volkan</a> and <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Evelin+Lindner?_requestid=202343">Evelin Lindner</a> –emphasises that the need for dignity is basic to our psychological make up. To feel that we have been stripped of it is very threatening and destabilising. We may respond with rage against the world, but especially against those who, we feel, have put us in such a position.</p>
<h2>A point of agreement</h2>
<p>Notably, the idea that the present impasse is humiliating for Britain is being offered by Remainers as well as Leavers. Indeed, according to <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-90-say-handling-of-negotiations-is-national-humiliation-sky-data-poll-11670995">one poll</a>, nearly everyone in the UK is now feeling humiliated by the whole dismal process. When asked “Is the way the UK is dealing with Brexit a national humiliation?” 90% of the respondents said yes. That is, however, a very leading question; a lot of other dramatic phrases could be substituted for “national humiliation” and would probably produce the same response.</p>
<p>Although the UK is in acute difficulty, with Leavers and Remainers both having reasons to despair of the process, is this really a humiliation? Let there be no illusions: the British public has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-the-uncivil-war-what-it-told-us-and-what-it-didnt-109532">badly led</a> (sometimes deceitfully so) in the referendum campaigns and through the negotiations.</p>
<p>The country may need constitutional reform, its tribal party system is now <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-this-brexit-debacle-shows-us-about-the-uks-broken-political-system-108650">clearly dysfunctional</a>, and so on, but similar and worse problems exist elsewhere in Europe as well. The British parliament is less polarised than those in Scandinavian countries and it is still far from planning an “illiberal democracy” (see <a href="https://theconversation.com/europes-illiberal-states-why-hungary-and-poland-are-turning-away-from-constitutional-democracy-89622">Hungary</a>).</p>
<p>Experiencing protracted difficulty in reaching a democratic resolution to a major choice between different visions of national identity may be frustrating, even infuriating, and could have been minimised with much better leadership, but it is not intrinsically humiliating. An insistence that it is humiliating will – like the language of treachery – widen the internal rift by intensifying the need to blame others, internally and externally.</p>
<p>We should therefore try to keep these escalatory words out of the Brexit debate as it painfully rolls on. As participants in a recent Newsnight discussion about the humiliation trope concluded, Brexit is probably an embarrassment but not a humiliation. British people may feel some situational discomfort in their national identity, but do not – or should not – feel that it has, in essence, become totally devalued, and deserves the contempt or pity of others.</p>
<h2>Why ‘humiliation’?</h2>
<p>But we also need to ask why such words have entered the debate. They may be out of place in the Brexit context, but they have been taken up there because the feelings they express are churning around in the emotional public sphere. We ignore them at our peril.</p>
<p>Feelings of humiliation are politically dangerous, whether or not they can be fully explained and justified by the present state of the Brexit process or any other actual situation. There are many examples of how such feelings have prepared the way for resentment-driven populism, most obviously in the contemporary US, and have also, at their extremes, been a major driver of today’s terrorism in both neo-Nazi and Islamist modes.</p>
<p>While some people in more psychologically secure sections of the British public may be able to see the Brexit imbroglio as no worse than an embarrassment (and one due to the failure of others), a sense of national humiliation can gain traction in the minds of those who do not personally feel secure or dignified in the contemporary world. Aggregated personal insecurities can become a political force, for example as support for a “strong man” leader who promises to recapture lost pride.</p>
<p>There is an emotional connection between feeling humiliated and feeling betrayed, which is in the capacity to trust. In the feeling of humiliation, there is a collapse of trust in oneself, a vulnerability to feeling defined by the jibes of others.</p>
<p>While people may feel humiliated, and in some way link that feeling to Brexit, psychologically we should take a more complex view of where that feeling may come from. While Brexit has both exposed and added to the fragility of trust in Britain today, we can avoid endorsing and amplifying the sense of humiliation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115785/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry Richards does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>History is replete with examples of what happens when the idea of a nation being humiliated is allowed to fester.Barry Richards, Professor of Political Psychology, Bournemouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/691122017-03-02T01:39:32Z2017-03-02T01:39:32ZHow to talk climate change across the aisle: Focus on adaptive solutions rather than causes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159028/original/image-20170301-5529-1a4g4qf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will talk of adapting to climate change be less polarizing politically? Faced with rising seas, Miami is adapting by raising its roads. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Lynne Sladky</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Conversations about climate change often derail into arguments about whether global warming exists, whether climate change is already happening, the extent to which human activity is a cause and which beliefs are based in evidence versus propaganda. </p>
<p>Can we have more productive discussions? We think the answer is yes, but like so many things, it depends. </p>
<p>Many have argued it’s better to focus on strategic solutions to climate change than on science or politics or pundits. Solutions directly affect our future, whereas past-oriented debates focus on who or what is to blame and who should pay, and thus are highly polarizing.</p>
<p>Breaking from the old, stale debates sounds appealing, but new debates lie ahead. The solutions to our climate challenges differ from one another not just technically (cutting emissions, carbon capture, planting trees, erecting seawalls and elevating roads and buildings), but also psychologically and behaviorally.</p>
<p>What will be the major disagreements, and agreements, of the future? Are there different psychological and behavioral roadblocks and paths to different climate solutions, and if so, what are they? We have some initial answers to these questions, as well as important questions for going forward.</p>
<h2>Underlying psychologies</h2>
<p>To begin solving the dilemmas of climate change, two primary strategic approaches require discussion: mitigation and adaptation.</p>
<p>For years, the primary option and a lightning rod for disagreement has been mitigation, or actions that cut the amounts of carbon and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. For many, mitigation is essential; for many others, cutting emissions threatens industry, jobs, free markets and our quality of life. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158799/original/image-20170228-29911-v6wfem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Talking about climate change as a mitigation problem, where society needs to use less energy from driving and other daily uses, has failed to get broad public support.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/septim/9649144066/in/photostream/">septim/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now we are entering a period of adaptation, in which we must try to reduce the impact of the coming changes. Examples include changing agricultural practices, erecting seawalls, and new approaches to architecture and living arrangements. </p>
<p>In some ways it is a relief to articulate ways to adapt to climate change. More coping options are better than fewer, right? Well, not necessarily. Their costs and risks differ, their effects are uncertain and varied, and decisions that will drive their deployment can derive from radically different evaluations and judgments. </p>
<p>We should not choose between mitigation or adaptation because we need both. We cannot lose sight of this dual need. But we will continue to face very demanding decisions about how to allocate finite resources – money, time, effort and so on – across multiple strategic options. This is where tomorrow’s difficult conversations will unfold. </p>
<p>How will trade-offs be made, and what kinds of perceptions and biases will determine our choices? We will not be able to optimize our strategies, as objectively and effectively as humanly possible, without understanding the psychologies underlying them. </p>
<p>Research into the psychology of different climate solutions is in its infancy. A <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124843">recent study</a> showed how different political ideologies predict different levels of support for free market versus regulatory solutions for cutting carbon emissions. </p>
<p>Building on this foundation, we wanted to ascertain and test people’s differing perceptions of mitigation versus adaptation as climate solutions. Such differences, we presumed, will be crucial in shaping the nature of future conversations, decisions, and actions.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.001">surveys of two online samples</a> in the United States, taken when temperatures around the country differed significantly, we asked respondents to describe their beliefs about global warming and climate change. We separated and defined mitigation and adaptation strategies, and asked how much people were willing to support these different types of climate solutions. </p>
<p>As might be intuited, support for mitigation and for adaptation were positively correlated – people who supported one were more likely to support the other. However, while the two overlap, they do understand and perceive the two strategies to be different. </p>
<h2>Gateway strategy?</h2>
<p>We found additional important differences. Overall, mitigation solutions received more support than adaptation strategies. Mitigation was also more divisive, showing the widest divide between conservatives and liberals. Adaptation was less divisive; perhaps this bodes well for future climate-solution conversations and action.</p>
<p>However, a key caveat is crucial for thinking about how we go forward. While we did find less disagreement around adaptation, and some general support, many people probably have not yet been exposed to information or debates about adaptation, or given it much thought. </p>
<p>Perhaps this novelty represents a naive stage among citizens about any issue before it becomes politicized and polarizing. On the other hand, adaptation more than mitigation is agnostic about climate-change causes; whether climate change results from human causes or natural ones is irrelevant. This may be one reason we found more agreement around adaptation. </p>
<p>But what will happen when adaptation is as prominent on everyone’s radar as mitigation has been for years? Maybe it will become polarizing like mitigation, in which case we should have more of these conversations sooner rather than later.</p>
<p>Looking ahead, certain questions are crucial: As we engage in more adaptation efforts, what will we do with respect to mitigation? We cannot stop engaging in those vital activities to reduce greenhouse gases. On the other hand, the climate change train has left the station, so we have to adapt. But beware the false choice; we still have to slow the train down through more mitigation. </p>
<p>Theories offer competing predictions on whether engaging in adaptation will reduce our mitigation efforts. People may feel less urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through mitigation if we interpret our adaptation as progress and preparedness, lessening our “felt need” to mitigate. </p>
<p>On the other hand, people may come to see both mitigation and adaptation as a commitment to doing all that is needed to cope with climate change, and view the two solution strategies as complementary rather than substitutes.</p>
<p>Ideally, adaptation is a gateway strategy for cooperation, a common ground for conversation and the beginnings of continued collaboration. Ideally, too, adaptation efforts will reveal more about the full costs of climate change. After all, action now and at the source (mitigation) is both cheaper and higher leverage than forever adapting into the future.</p>
<p>And now <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-solar-geoengineering-be-part-of-responsible-climate-policy-51016">geoengineering</a> – or deliberately altering the climate system, such as shielding the sun’s heat by injecting particles into the atmosphere – is looming as a possible third solution set. Crucially, geoengineering has a different risk matrix and unstudied implications, both scientific and psychological.</p>
<p>Only by understanding the psychology of climate change can we deploy optimal strategies and solution mixes that vary appropriately over time and across different geographies.</p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275743/original/file-20190521-23817-1fnbziu.png?w=128&h=128">
<div>
<header></header>
<p><a href="http://aom.org/">Thomas Bateman is a member of the Academy of Management</a></p>
<footer>The academy is a funding partner of The Conversation US.</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Bateman is an Academy of Management scholar.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kieran O'Connor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Talk of adapting to climate change is less polarizing to conservatives than the idea of slashing emissions.Thomas S. Bateman, Emeritus professor, University of VirginiaKieran O'Connor, Assistant Professor of Commerce, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/725482017-02-13T01:51:31Z2017-02-13T01:51:31ZWhy politicians think they know better than scientists – and why that’s so dangerous<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156266/original/image-20170209-8637-16avknx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Making a point at a Washington, D.C. protest in January.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenmelkisethian/32487346636/">stephenmelkisethian/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the most unexpected political developments in recent months has been the political awakening of scientists in the United States. </p>
<p>A normally reticent group (at least when it comes to politics), scientists are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/science/donald-trump-scientists-politics.html?emc=eta1&_r=0">speaking out, organizing a major march and planning to run for public office</a>. There is a growing sense that the danger posed by the Trump administration to evidence-based policy, and perhaps science itself, is unprecedented. I share this concern. The Trump administration’s <a href="http://mashable.com/2016/12/18/trump-cabinet-climate-deniers-guide/#6j4GD5uMGmqz">actions</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on-science-are-shockingly-ignorant/">rhetoric</a> appear to signal an acceleration of Republican skepticism toward scientific research carried out in the public interest.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"828574430800539648"}"></div></p>
<p>This said, what is keeping political scientists, particularly those like me who study political psychology, up at night is not the Trump administration’s ideologically driven science bias. Rather, it is the fact that Trump himself exhibits an authoritarian style of motivated reasoning that appears to be intended (consciously or not) to consolidate his power. </p>
<p>This combination – institutional challenges to the scientific integrity of government employees and Trump’s willingness to disregard evidence on a variety of matters – has broad and ominous implications beyond how science informs national policies. </p>
<h2>Science as political target</h2>
<p>Politically motivated skepticism of science is certainly not new. As I have argued elsewhere, <a href="http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-107?rskey=jlffxR&result=1#acrefore-9780190228613-e-107-bibItem-0042">science is consistently a political target</a> precisely because of its political power. </p>
<p>Science has “epistemic authority,” meaning it is the best method humans have available to understand what is true about the world. For this reason, policy decisions are expected to be based in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Based-Policy-Practical-Guide-Better/dp/0199841624/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486514338&sr=1-1&keywords=evidence-based+policy">large part on scientific conclusions</a>. And as the size and scope of the federal government has increased, so has the use of scientific research in government decision-making, making it an even bigger target.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156414/original/image-20170210-23350-1sx27ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scott Pruitt, a skeptic of well-established climate science and ally of the fossil fuel industry, will head the EPA, an agency charged with protecting the environment and health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/24967514373/in/photolist-E3i3aK-ERurNv-9mXnoy-rqKgqb-eac2U8-roxxSu-roxzyL-r7wfNP-r7waTt-rqQygP-p1nWhb-nbGwQY-r9oDqD-nbGtUu-9mXmBW-nsVqj3-nbGqz2-nbGnqM-nteJif-nte9nu-nbH1aX-r9g9xm-6LaCys-2QuBHv-nbGEPe-qu49w6-nsUuWa-qu4bNR-nr9pGw-nbGtX2-nsVpdW-nsVmmU-nbGWWL-r7w9jM-8sDtvi-nbGZRS-9mUjLk-nbGJ5d-r9hceU-nteqzj-nuY8Px-nbH3D4-nsV2gZ-nbGpWD-nsVe6S-ntbZYR-nsUsTT-nsVi6A-nr9QVs-8sGwmo">gageskidmore/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A number of actions taken so far by the Trump administration seem to portend hostility to government-sponsored science and science-backed policy. Many were alarmed by orders during the administration’s first week in office that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html?_r=0">government agencies cease all communications with the public</a>. </p>
<p>But likely more indicative of the administration’s attitude toward government-sponsored research are Trump’s nominees to head Cabinet-level agencies. These individuals have <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trump-cabinet-tracker/510527/">less relevant expertise than previous administrations</a>, and Trump’s Cabinet is the first in recent memory to include <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/12/28/506299885/how-the-donald-trump-cabinet-stacks-up-in-3-charts">no one with a Ph.D</a>. The nominee to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has questioned well-accepted climate science and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/trumps-epa-pick-is-skeptical-of-more-than-just-climate-change/509960/">worked closely with energy companies to undermine the agency he is to head</a>. </p>
<p>In addition, Trump’s choice for OMB director, Mick Mulvaney, has taken a similar tack with respect to <a href="http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/21/14012552/trump-budget-director-research-science-mulvaney">government-sponsored science aimed at protecting the public’s health</a>. The two scientists said to be under consideration for science advisor both happen to be far <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/rumours-swirl-about-trump-s-science-adviser-pick-1.21336">outside the mainstream on climate science</a> (neither is a climate scientist).</p>
<h2>‘Bending’ science for political reasons</h2>
<p>It is important to recognize that scientific evidence is not the only legitimate consideration underlying a policy decision. There may be larger ideological commitments at stake or constituents to please or (less justifiably) more strategic political considerations. </p>
<p>The problem for science and evidence-based policy comes when politicians and other political actors decide to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_luc_rh_bxgy_01_02_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1">discredit the science</a> on which a conclusion is based or bend the science to support their policy position. Call it “policy-based evidence” as opposed to “evidence-based policy.”</p>
<p>Such bending of science comes in <a href="http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-107?rskey=jlffxR&result=1#acrefore-9780190228613-e-107-bibItem-0042">a variety of forms</a>: cherry-picking studies and experts that support your perspective; harassing government-sponsored scientists – via cuts in funding or investigations – whose conclusions weigh against policies you prefer; forcing government scientists to change the language of reports for political reasons.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156268/original/image-20170209-8646-1ypk17f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John Marburger was science advisor to George W. Bush, whose administration was criticized for manipulating how science was used in policy decisions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marburger#/media/File:John_Marburger_official_portrait.jpg">Brookhaven National Laboratory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Science bias in and of itself is not conservative or liberal, and <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716214555474">one can find it on both sides of the political spectrum</a>. However, if we are to avoid <a href="http://fusion.net/story/341420/the-maddening-world-of-false-equivalence-media-from-a-climate-reporter-who-knows/">false equivalence</a>, we must admit that most of the anti-science bias coming from politicians in recent decades has been from the Republican Party. This <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Science-Waging-Matters-About/dp/1571313532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486518402&sr=1-1&keywords=war+on+science">bias</a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_luc_rh_bxgy_01_02_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1">has been</a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486518402&sr=1-3&keywords=war+on+science">documented extensively</a>. (One can also check out the two parties’ <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php">2016 party platforms</a>.) </p>
<p>There is a straightforward reason for this partisan difference: Much contemporary government-sponsored research is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Branch-Science-Advisers-Policymakers/dp/0674300629/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486514613&sr=8-1&keywords=fifth+branch">in service of a growing regulatory state</a>. Republicans tend to oppose federal government regulation because of their longstanding representation of business interests and commitment to states’ rights. In recent decades, the Republican Party also has become the political home to religious conservatives, many of whom distrust science because it <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Creationism-Control-Americas-Classrooms/dp/0521148863/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1486519690&sr=8-1">challenges biblical authority, particularly with respect to evolution</a>.</p>
<p>The George W. Bush administration was arguably the heyday for ideologically driven <a href="https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps94771/20071210101633.pdf">interference in government-produced science</a>, something well-documented in <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/reports-scientific-integrity.html#.WJp3qm8rKM8">two</a> <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/scientific-integrity-in.html#.WJp32W8rKM8">reports</a> by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In response to this, the Obama administration put in place various <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/01/preserving-scientific-integrity-in-federal-policymaking-ucs-2017.pdf">institutional safeguards to protect the integrity of science</a>, and Congress strengthened its <a href="https://www.congress.gov/112/bills/s743/BILLS-112s743enr.pdf">protection of federal whistleblowers</a>. </p>
<p>But Trump’s rhetoric and actions – both before and after assuming the presidency – seem to foreshadow a <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/01/preserving-scientific-integrity-in-federal-policymaking-ucs-2017.pdf">return to Bush-era tactics</a>. Trump’s Cabinet choices exhibit an unusual fixation on <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-trump-misses-about-regulations-they-produce-benefits-as-well-as-costs-72470">deregulation</a>, particularly in the arena of energy and the environment. And both Trump and his powerful vice president have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/11/10/trump-and-pence-on-science-in-their-own-words/?utm_term=.ba5da63ef91e">a history of making statements</a> that are ignorant and mistrustful of science.</p>
<h2>Danger in the rhetoric</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, there is reason to suspect that Trump’s disdain for scientific research is not only driven by political ideology and the interests he represents. Trump clearly <a href="http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/10/why-is-trumps-skin-so-much-thinner-than-clintons.html">chafes</a> against anyone or anything that challenges his power, including empirical reality.</p>
<p>Trump’s constant efforts to aggrandize himself are plain to see. In the past, Donald Trump lied about everything from the size of his home to his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.23e32af49837">donations to charity</a>. In service of whipping up a crowd, Trump has been willing to scapegoat entire minority groups and falsely question a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/">president’s citizenship</a>.</p>
<p>So far, President Trump has focused mainly on <a href="http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/21/14347952/trump-spicer-press-conference-crowd-size-inauguration">crowd sizes</a>, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-authoritarian-approach-to-managing-public-opinion.html">poll numbers</a> and the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/12/04/trump-responds-immediately-saturday-night-live-skit-mocking-his-tweets/94933756/">merits of comedians’ performances</a>. Many Americans are tempted to not take these distortions of seemingly trivial topics seriously. But this is authoritarian rhetoric. </p>
<p>As with all presidents, Trump will eventually face data that reflect poorly on some aspects of his job performance: for example, pollution levels, disease rates, disappointing jobs figures, etc. He has been so consistent in his dissembling to protect his reputation that it would be surprising if this behavior did not continue in the face of more serious threats. Scholars are already speculating that Trump may employ <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/gdp-unemployment-credible-trump/515205/">Nixonian efforts to doctor official government statistics</a> or discourage critical scholarly study of society under his administration by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/02/a-field-guide-to-political-scientists-trying-to-survive-the-trump-administration/?utm_term=.e62e671e8439">eliminating NSF social and economic science funding</a>.</p>
<p>Between his executive power and the power of the bully pulpit, President Trump has considerable ability to harm the scientific enterprise and quite possibly democratic institutions as well. This is a time, in my view, for <a href="http://search.proquest.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/1858823793?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=8285">scientists, and experts more generally, to mobilize</a>. As Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School argues, experts play <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Power-Constraint-Accountable-Presidency-After/dp/0393081338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486545403&sr=1-1&keywords=power+and+constraint">a critical role at moments like this as a “synopticon”</a> – a large collective closely <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/containing-trump/513854/">monitoring</a> the actions of our political leaders.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Suhay currently consults for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is assisting AAAS as they develop a new training program aimed at helping scientists better communicate their scientific findings to policymakers.</span></em></p>Scientists are concerned that politics will trump evidence in the new administration. A researcher of political psychology explains why these worries matter far beyond questions of science.Elizabeth Suhay, Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public AffairsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/694932016-12-04T19:09:52Z2016-12-04T19:09:52ZFrom ‘fascists’ to ‘feminazis’: how both sides of politics are biased in their political thinking<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148363/original/image-20161202-25663-1dn2qwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Individuals from both sides of politics will refuse to accept evidence that contradicts their beliefs.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Any frequent user of social media is probably aware of the tendency for both sides of politics to view the other as fundamentally immoral and ignorant. </p>
<p>Interestingly, longitudinal data suggests that <a href="http://voteview.com/Polarized_America.htm">political polarisation is intensifying</a>, at least in the United States, with the recent US election seeing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/politics/partisanship-republicans-democrats-pew-research.html">partisanship reach an all-time high</a>.</p>
<p>One important contributor to this phenomenon is <a href="http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/nickerson1998.pdf">confirmation bias</a>: the tendency to seek or interpret evidence as supporting our pre-existing beliefs, regardless of whether it really does. </p>
<p>There is also research showing that confirmation bias is particularly active when the evidence at hand <a href="https://www.unc.edu/%7Efbaum/teaching/articles/AJPS-2006-Taber.pdf">threatens the validity</a> of our political worldview. </p>
<h2>An experiment on bias</h2>
<p>To illustrate this phenomenon, Yale University’s <a href="https://www.law.yale.edu/dan-m-kahan">Dan Kahan</a> and colleagues <a href="http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/386437/23982003/1385735927633/wp_draft_1.5_9_14_13.pdf">ran an experiment</a> to see how our political biases influence the way people interpret hard data. </p>
<p>They presented participants with two tables of made-up data about the link between gun control and crime rates. The numbers in both tables were identical; the only difference was the labels were switched. One referred to the efficacy of a fictional skin care cream and the other referred to the effect on crime of carrying handguns (see below).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148219/original/image-20161201-17757-1bz8etf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The only difference in the charts is the labels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kahan et al. (2013)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What they found was rather surprising. When the data contradicted a participant’s political beliefs, they were much less likely to interpret the data correctly. Indeed, most participants even claimed the statistics supported their pre-existing belief! </p>
<p>This effect was seen in similar amounts both for self-declared progressives and conservatives, which debunks the idea that one side of politics is more prone to bias than the other. </p>
<p>You might think that someone with a better grasp of numbers might have some immunity to this bias. But the study also found that ideological biases in the interpretation of statistics were even more pronounced for participants with better numeracy scores. </p>
<p>This raises the possibility that people who are more intelligent may tend be more biased as they use their superior cognitive capacities to more effectively mould their interpretation of the evidence to fit their worldview.</p>
<h2>Motivated cognition in Australian politics</h2>
<p>Although Kahan’s study was conducted in an American context, real-world examples of politically-motivated interpretations of statistics can be seen in Australian political discourse. </p>
<p>Take the recent debate over comments made by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-24/peter-dutton-defends-comments-on-lebanese-muslim-refugees/8053350">about Lebanese immigration</a>. There are two statistical heuristics that could be considered in deciding the level of terrorist threat posed by Lebanese-Australians: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The proportion of people involved in terrorism-related activities who are of Lebanese vs. non-Lebanese descent, and </p></li>
<li><p>The proportion of the total Lebanese-Australian population who are involved in terrorism-related activities vs. those who aren’t. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Conservatives tend to emphasise the former and <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/andrew-bolt-how-we-still-pay-for-malcolm-frasers-big-blunder/news-story/c4c08670e62f52aa0166140fcc82a984">imply that this statistic highlights a problem with Lebanese culture</a>. </p>
<p>On the other hand, progressives emphasise the latter, that <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-26/lebanese-australians-speak-out-over-peter-dutton-comments/8058064">the vast majority of Lebanese-Australians disavow terrorism</a> and that terrorist activity represents a disturbed minority acting against the values of the wider Lebanese-Australian community. </p>
<p>However, both progressives and conservatives will flip which statistical heuristic they use when it suits their ideology. </p>
<p>For instance, when it comes to discussion about the causes of sexual assault, <a href="http://time.com/30545/its-time-to-end-rape-culture-hysteria/">many conservatives</a> condemn what they perceive as a generalised demonisation of men for the actions of a few going against mainstream social norms. </p>
<p>On the other hand, progressives tend to focus on the fact that men are more likely to engage in sexual violence than women, and tend <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/the-epidemic-of-rape-culture-in-schools-can-no-longer-be-ignored-20160817-gquv53.html">to place the blame on aspects of mainstream Australian culture</a>.</p>
<h2>Why the inconsistency?</h2>
<p>One way to understand the different perspectives taken by progressives and conservatives is to look at their worldview, which represents how they understand the world to work, and their place in it.</p>
<p>Conservatives tend to have a <a href="http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf">worldview</a> that seeks to justify and preserve a “superior” majority culture that is threatened by “inferior” minority cultures.</p>
<p>Therefore, in an Australian context, they tend to focus on the large proportion of terrorism offenders who are Lebanese (strategy 1 above), and emphasise that only a small proportion of Australian men engage in sexual violence (strategy 2).</p>
<p>Conversely, progressives tend to reject the idea that mainstream Western culture is inherently superior. They are thus more averse to criticisms of minority cultures and more receptive to statistics that imply issues with the dominant majority culture. </p>
<p>So they emphasise the small proportion of Lebanese Australians who are involved in terrorism (strategy 2), and criticise mainstream Australian culture for the fact that men are the perpetrators of most sexual violence (strategy 1).</p>
<p>It must be noted that the existence of political biases does not mean that both the conservative and progressive positions on any particular issue are wrong. The fact that people on both sides of politics demonstrate motivated reasoning does not imply a kind of compromise centrism where the truth always lies between a conservative and progressive viewpoint. </p>
<p>What it does demonstrate is the mental gymnastics we will undergo to deflect threats to our worldviews. </p>
<p>For me, an awareness of this tendency for bias promotes humility, openness to different opinions and empathy for political opponents; for they are as much trapped in their mind as I am in mine.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69493/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Moreton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We like to think that our political views are well reasoned and backed by evidence. But research shows how easily we all succumb to cognitive biases to justify our own deeply held views.Sam Moreton, PhD Candidate in Psychology, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/636522016-08-25T02:08:52Z2016-08-25T02:08:52ZWhat you see is not always what you get: how virtual reality can manipulate our minds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135446/original/image-20160825-30228-1pl5rb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who are you really talking to in your virtual chat?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is often said that you should not believe everything you see on the internet. But with the advent of immersive technology – like <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/virtual-reality-5439">virtual reality</a> (VR) and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/augmented-reality-2801">augmented reality</a> (AR) – this becomes more than doubly true. </p>
<p>The full capabilities of these immersive technologies have yet to be explored, but already we can get a sense of how they can be used to manipulate us.</p>
<p>You may not think you are someone who is easily duped, but what if the techniques used are so subtle that you are not even aware of them? The truth is that once you’re in a VR world, you can be influenced without knowing it.</p>
<p>Unlike video conferencing, where video data is presented exactly as it is recorded, immersive technologies only send select information and not necessarily the actual graphical content. </p>
<p>This has always been the case in multiplayer gaming, where the gaming server simply sends location and other information to your computer. It’s then up to your computer to translate that into a full picture.</p>
<p>Interactive VR is similar. In many cases, very little data is shared between the remote computer and yours, and the actual visual scene is constructed locally. </p>
<p>This means that what you are seeing on your end is not necessarily the same as what is being seen at the other end. If you are engaged in a VR chat, the facial features, expressions, gestures, bodily appearance and many other factors can be altered by software without you knowing it.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IIGFGF1hQmw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Stanford researchers examine the psychology of virtual reality.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Like you like me</h2>
<p>In a positive sense VR can be helpful in many fields. For example, research shows that eye contact increases the attentiveness of students, but a teacher lecturing a large class cannot make eye contact with every student. </p>
<p>With VR, though, the software can be programmed to make the teacher appear to be making eye contact with all of the students at the same time. So a physical impossibility becomes virtually possible. </p>
<p>But there will always be some people who will co-opt a tool and use it for something perhaps more nefarious. What if, instead of a teacher, we had a politician or lobbyist, and something more controversial or contentious was being said? What if the eye contact meant that you were more persuaded as a result? And this is only the beginning.</p>
<p>Research has shown that the <a href="http://phys.org/news/2011-01-virtual-affect-reality.html">appearance of ourselves</a> and others in a virtual world can <a href="http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/how-your-vr-self-influences-your-real-life-self.html">influence us in the real world</a>. </p>
<p>This can also be coupled with techniques that are already used to boost influence. Mimicry is one example. If one person mimics the body language of another in a conversation, then the person being mimicked will become more favourably disposed towards them. </p>
<p>In VR it is easy to do this as the movements of each individual are tracked, so a speaker’s avatar could be made to mimic every person in the audience without them realising it. </p>
<p>More insidious still, all the features of a person’s face can easily be captured by software and turned into an avatar. <a href="https://vhil.stanford.edu/mm/2011/bailenson-ieee-vr-social.pdf">Several studies</a> from Stanford University have shown that if the features of a political figure could be changed even slightly to resemble each voter in turn, then that could have a significant influence on how people voted. </p>
<p>The experiments took pictures of study participants and real candidates in an mock up of an election campaign. The pictures of each candidate were then <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphing">morphed</a> to resemble each participant in turn. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2vSF0FvPlzM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Stanford researcher Jeremy Bailenson explains how political manipulation was easily done in VR experiments.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They found that if 40% of the participant’s features were incorporated into the candidates face, the participants were entirely unaware the image had been manipulated. Yet the blended picture significantly influenced the intended voting result in favour of the morphed candidate. </p>
<p>What happens in the virtual world does not stay in the virtual world. We must therefore be mindful when we step into this new realm that what we see is not always what we get.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr David Evans Bailey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Subtle manipulation of virtual reality can radically change how we respond without us even realising it.Dr David Evans Bailey, PhD Researcher in Virtual Reality, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/400382015-04-12T15:16:53Z2015-04-12T15:16:53ZDo our genes tell us how to vote? Study of twins says they might<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77678/original/image-20150411-2078-1mgnixd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C540%2C2490%2C1751&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The citizens came in two by two.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/figgenhoffer/3662160468/in/photolist-6zBwHJ-hVjEPp-hVKJ4R-dAr1Fn-hVipJt-nJRA-hVKHK4-hVjFqp-hVJL1R-hVKDKa-AtCF2-6Bqwd8-6fQFSk-nJRD-gHK61e-nJRF-dm6VH8-nJRC-53WZgV-4ThSDD-GddEf-hVjnvB-fPxNm2-hVK653-9M2DZZ-9NBBMn-9NGKrb-9NAsCc-2v">D.C.Atty</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a society we believe that our political allegiance depends on which party best marries up with our needs and values – and that these are shaped by our life experiences. But research with twins suggests picking who to vote for in an election might have more to do with your genes than the policies of the parties.</p>
<p>At the Department of Twin Research, which hosts <a href="https://twinsuk.ac.uk">TwinsUK</a>, the biggest adult twin registry in the UK, we recently performed a poll of voting preferences. The twins were all born in the UK and were broadly representative of the UK population. The aim was to explore how much nature and nurture influence our party political allegiances and potential voting preferences so we can draw broader conclusions about people’s voting habits. </p>
<p>Twins provide a unique natural experiment for research. Identical twins share 100% of their genes, while non-identical twins – like non-twin siblings – share about 50%. Both identical and non-identical twins normally share the same environment while growing up. By comparing the differences and similarities between them we can identify how much of a quirk, disease, or trait is due to a genetic predisposition or environmental and cultural factors. Because twin studies adjust for culture and upbringing they are an ideal way to study political allegiances.</p>
<p>We analysed surveys completed by 2,355 twins (comprising responses from 612 full pairs) in March 2015 between the ages of 18 and 80 – most of whom were middle aged. They told us whether they intended to vote, what their political party of choice was and provided their personal rating of the main party leaders.</p>
<p>We found that voting Conservative (or not) is strongly influenced by genetics. When it came to voting Tory, we found that 57% of the variability (differences or similarity) between people’s voting preferences were due to genetic effects. This percentage is called <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-heritability-21334">heritability</a>. That means the identical twins were more likely to vote the same way than the non-identical twins – suggesting an underlying genetic influence was stronger than environmental or random factors. </p>
<p>For UKIP voting preferences, there was also a moderately strong heritability of 51%. This was closely followed by Labour and the Green Party both with 48%.</p>
<p>The exception seemed to be voting for the Liberal Democrats, which was affected entirely by environment, with no genetic influence. Identical twins showed exactly the same level of disparity in preference for the Lib Dems as non-identical twins. Geography also played a possible role – as voting for the SNP in Scotland was also completely environmental. </p>
<p>These latest results from UK data confirm the trends found in <a href="https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/funk-genetic-and-envrionmental-transmission-of-political-orietntation.pdf">previous research</a>, mainly carried out in the US. A 2008 survey of 682 pairs of middle-aged twins from the Minnesota Twin Registry showed that self-reported political ideology and right-wing authoritarianism were consistently more similar in the identical twins than the fraternal twins.</p>
<p>Previous studies have also shown strong genetic influences on right-wing views – be they for or against. </p>
<p>We and others have demonstrated consistent genetic influences on all measurable aspects of our personalities. The consensus is that these political leanings are mainly due to the genetic makeup of our underlying personalities.</p>
<h2>Will you vote?</h2>
<p>Despite this, our survey shows that whether we intend to vote or not does not seem to be influenced by genes and personality. That decision appears to be entirely shaped by environmental factors.</p>
<p>The question of whether a leader would make a good prime minister produced mixed responses. David Cameron had the stronger genetic influence on opinions, with 50% heritability, followed by Nick Clegg at 37%. Views on all the other party leaders were purely environmental.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/on-the-face-of-it-the-psychology-of-electability">Psychology studies</a> have shown our sub-conscious biases for leaders who are tall and with round symmetrical faces so maybe this also plays a role in our choices.</p>
<p>But even if we do see party leaders differently, the findings of this study suggest that our choices at the polling booth may not be as free or rational as we would like to believe. Something to think about when you approach the ballot box.</p>
<p><em>Victoria Vazquez also contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40038/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Spector is the author of Identically Different and the Diet Myth</span></em></p>Study finds identical twins more likely to vote the same way – unless they back the Lib Dems.Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/269262014-06-13T22:36:50Z2014-06-13T22:36:50ZFaithful Fido or fickle Felix: what determines our pet preferences?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49336/original/rqph76r5-1400813334.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Studies have, in the past, suggested that dogs appeal most to people who are extroverted, conscientious, agreeable and conventional.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cams</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Pets inspire powerful emotions and strong attachments. They comfort the sick, console the lonely and entertain the children. We invite them into our families, pay their human-sized medical expenses and mourn their passing. </p>
<p>Our preferences for them are often passionate as well. To a dog devotee cats are arrogant and frivolous. To a partisan cat lover dogs are slavish embarrassments.</p>
<p>Our personalities are one possibility in explaining where these differing tastes in pets originate. We might be drawn to creatures that match our ways of thinking, feeling and acting, resonating with beasts that resemble us. </p>
<p>Alternatively, we might like pets that differ from us, attracted by the animal magnetism of opposites. A melancholy person might favour a sluggish and soulful companion, or a hyperactive diversion. Either way, pet lovers’ tastes may reveal their temperaments.</p>
<h2>Reflecting our personality</h2>
<p>Personality may tell some of the story, but not all. Pet preferences are also associated with gender and political beliefs. Studies show that women tend to favour cats and men prefer dogs. </p>
<p>In a 2014 American survey conducted with Time magazine, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt also showed that conservatives <a href="http://time.com/8293/its-true-liberals-like-cats-more-than-conservatives-do/">prefer dogs</a>. A 2012 <a href="https://www.avma.org/news/pressroom/pages/TopBotomTenStatesForPets.aspx">study</a> conducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association found that nine of the ten states with the highest rates of dog ownership voted Republican in that year’s US presidential election. Nine of the ten states with the lowest rates voted Democrat.</p>
<p>If personality plays a role in our taste in pets, which characteristics might be implicated, and could these characteristics shine a light on the political dimension of pet preferences? <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2010-17399-001">One study</a> suggests that dogs appeal most to people who are extroverted, conscientious, agreeable and conventional. </p>
<p>But in an <a href="http://www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/sites/live-1-14-1.msps.moatdev.com/files/Cats%20and%20Dogs%20paper.pdf">article</a> soon to be published in the journal Anthrozoos, we explored another possibility.</p>
<h2>Our research</h2>
<p>Mindful of the tendency for dogs to follow and obey their owners, and for cats to do anything but, we speculated that pet preferences might reflect differences between people in dominance-related personality traits.</p>
<p>Compared to cat people, dog people might be more assertive (interpersonally dominant), more competitive (eager to dominate) or more comfortable with social hierarchy (group dominance). If this were true, differences in personality between cat people and dog people might clarify their differences in political orientation and gender. </p>
<p><a href="http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3207711/Sidanius_SocialDominanceOrientation.pdf?sequence=1">Research</a> tends to show that liberals and women are less accepting of social inequality than are conservatives and men. A preference for cats or dogs might fit with this broader pattern.</p>
<p>We obtained two samples of more than 500 American adults and gave them a survey that assessed several dominance-related personality characteristics and quizzed them about their pet preferences. In both studies, self-professed dog people scored higher than cat people on measures of competitiveness and particularly on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation">“social dominance orientation”</a> (SDO) – the tendency to expect, accept and endorse inequality between social groups. </p>
<p>Women scored lower than men on SDO and were more likely to be cat people, but the link between SDO and being a dog person could not be explained by gender.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49820/original/7znhmb74-1401416782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49820/original/7znhmb74-1401416782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49820/original/7znhmb74-1401416782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49820/original/7znhmb74-1401416782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49820/original/7znhmb74-1401416782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49820/original/7znhmb74-1401416782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49820/original/7znhmb74-1401416782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women scored lower than men on social dominance orientation tests, and were more likely to be ‘cat people’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bloody Marty</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Hierarchical preferences</h2>
<p>The link between SDO and preferring dogs to cats is a little surprising. Why, after all, should political beliefs about the relationships between human groups have anything to do with relationships between humans and non-human animals? SDO is associated with prejudice towards a variety of disadvantaged groups, but it also appears to be linked to greater fondness for canines than felines.</p>
<p>The common thread appears to be a preference for hierarchical relationships, whether between top dogs and underdogs within human society or between a person who leads and an animal who follows. Perhaps there is some truth to English writer Aldous Huxley’s <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/92203-to-his-dog-every-man-is-napoleon-hence-the-constant">statement</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To his dog every man is Napoleon; hence the constant popularity of dogs.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000944">recent study</a> shows that people who are high in SDO have more favourable attitudes towards animal exploitation and are more likely to believe that humans are superior to animals.</p>
<p>The apparent link between preferring hierarchical relationships and preferring dogs to cats makes perfect sense when we consider the meanings that have been attached to dogs and cats. As cognitive scientist <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3774967.html">George Lakoff and his colleagues</a> have argued, metaphors associated with dogs tend to picture them as loyal, dependable and dependent, but also servile, weak and ignorant: the virtues and vices of underlings. </p>
<p>In contrast, metaphors associated with cats present them as selfish, greedy, cowardly, predatory and independent: the traits of the ungovernable. Fido is faithful, but Felix is fickle.</p>
<p>There are many reasons to love cats and dogs. Setting aside their different attitudes to authority, they both offer companionship and connection. Being a dog person does not make one a Napoleonic despot and cat people are not all egalitarians. </p>
<p>Many people love both animals. Perhaps we should be most troubled by those who love neither.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26926/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Haslam receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beatrice Alba does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pets inspire powerful emotions and strong attachments. They comfort the sick, console the lonely and entertain the children. We invite them into our families, pay their human-sized medical expenses and…Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology, The University of MelbourneBeatrice Alba, PhD Candidate, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/239742014-05-12T01:47:24Z2014-05-12T01:47:24ZWhat underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43366/original/q7kt39vy-1394165901.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many Australians feel the government should maintain a tough policy on asylum seekers who arrive by boat.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hazara/7633444360/sizes/l/">Hadi Zader/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>According to a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australians-want-boat-arrivals-treated-more-harshly-poll-20140108-30g97.html">poll</a> taken last December, 60% of those surveyed think the Australian government should “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers”. What’s behind this negative sentiment (otherwise known as prejudice) towards asylum seekers in Australian society?“</p>
<p>One very important and consistent predictor of prejudice is the acceptance of inaccurate information, or myths, as true. A 2006 <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5563/">study</a>, carried out by one of this article’s authors, identified three frequently cited myths that depicted asylum seekers as "queue jumpers”, “illegals” and not having a genuine reason to seek asylum. This study found that people who were high in prejudice were significantly more likely to accept these myths as being true. </p>
<p>These beliefs <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5563/">have been linked</a> with government rhetoric about asylum seekers under the previous Howard government. Under the <a href="http://theconversation.com/calling-a-boat-person-a-spade-australias-asylum-seeker-rhetoric-19367">Abbott government</a>, there has been no shortage of hostile rhetoric. The punitive asylum seeker policies of the Labor government under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have also continued.</p>
<h2>The ugly side of nationalism and perceptions of consensus</h2>
<p>Some research links extreme levels of nationalism to prejudice towards asylum seekers. In one <a href="http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/31/1440783314524846">study</a> into the phenomenon of flying Australian flags on one’s car for Australia Day, researchers from the University of Western Australia and Curtin University surveyed 501 people in public spaces in the week leading up to and on Australia Day in 2011. </p>
<p>The study found car-flag flyers rated more highly on measures of patriotism and nationalism and were significantly more likely to express prejudiced views against asylum seekers than non-flag flyers. Of those who flew flags, only 9.9% held positive views towards asylum seekers, compared to 24.7% of non-flag flyers.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44032/original/ngh3n67h-1395012444.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44032/original/ngh3n67h-1395012444.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44032/original/ngh3n67h-1395012444.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44032/original/ngh3n67h-1395012444.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44032/original/ngh3n67h-1395012444.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44032/original/ngh3n67h-1395012444.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44032/original/ngh3n67h-1395012444.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research suggests a correlation between nationalism and prejudice against asylum seekers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60494604@N00/2225893298/in/photolist-4oGhwE-4u6hFj-5UuYKF-5VbkHv-5VcM28-5VisSb-5VjmCs-5VLLDw-5VLLDU-5VM7Vw-7bJsML-7o35Lu-7AUqDe-9dgoph-9dyCnZ-j6Rhy4-biHoqv-biHoVk-biHoga-biHo7a-biHoFR-biHp2P-biHrzT-biHoCa-biHoNr-biHnUa-biHowr-biGMFe-biGMsx-biGMM6-biGMYi-biGMSD-biGvhz-biGvq4-biGtiD-biGujH-biGubc-biGsZ8-biGu4p-biGuQT-biGtXF-biGuJe-biGtQB-biGtrM-biGvy4-biGuxK-biGuqx-biGvaF-biGuYH-biGt9z-bj7LDe">Flickr/Brian Costelloe</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We have found that people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers are also notably more likely to over-estimate support in the community for these views compared with those more accepting of asylum seekers. </p>
<p>A 2008 <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5551/">study</a> carried out by one of the authors found while both groups over-estimated their support in the community, the effect was much more pronounced among people holding prejudiced views. </p>
<p>This finding is of concern because other research finds people who see themselves as having a “majority voice” are <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/19/4/389.abstract">more likely to be vocal</a> and less flexible in their views than others who see themselves as having a “minority voice”. </p>
<p>People who seek to be tolerant and accepting of asylum seekers often find it difficult to speak out. This compounds the problem: prejudiced people’s influence can be <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5551/">disproportionate to their numbers</a>.</p>
<h2>The role of emotion</h2>
<p>In addition to these cognitive factors that underlie prejudice, some studies indicate community views about asylum seekers are strongly linked with emotions. <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/3378/">Research</a> in 2010 found people who are positive towards asylum seekers are more likely to feel empathy for them, to feel moral outrage at their situation and to express disgust and embarrassment at Australia’s policy stance. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43352/original/k6qbw93y-1394153965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43352/original/k6qbw93y-1394153965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43352/original/k6qbw93y-1394153965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43352/original/k6qbw93y-1394153965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43352/original/k6qbw93y-1394153965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=914&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43352/original/k6qbw93y-1394153965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=914&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/43352/original/k6qbw93y-1394153965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=914&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hostile rhetoric from our politicians can build prejudice against asylum seekers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Daniel Munoz</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our recent unpublished study found people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers were more likely to feel threatened by them. This was the case in regard to perceived threats to both security and “Australian values”. </p>
<p>Prejudiced participants were also more likely to be angry at asylum seekers for their mode of entry. Once emotions are involved, the issue becomes even more difficult to resolve. </p>
<p>Participants were significantly more prejudiced against asylum seekers who arrive by boat compared with refugees who were accepted offshore and resettled through Australia’s <a href="https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm">Refugee and Humanitarian Program</a>. So, although racism – prejudice based on race – is clearly involved, it is not the whole story.</p>
<h2>Countering the myths that fuel prejudice</h2>
<p>The fact our participants were more negative towards boat arrivals relates to a myth touched on above: “queue jumping”. The term queue implies that an orderly resettlement process exists, but this is <a href="http://theconversation.com/uncomfortable-truths-busting-the-top-three-asylum-seeker-myths-8418">far from reality</a>. </p>
<p>It may also be the case many Australians are quite sensitive to what they see as rule-breaking. Our <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5505/">2012 study</a> on prejudice against Muslim Australians found a strong predictor of resentment was a perceived lack of conformity with Australian culture. Asylum seekers are often seen as Muslim even though they come from a range of religions, including Christianity and Hinduism. </p>
<p>Our finding also relates to the “not genuine” myth. Yet, over the last decade, more than 90% of boat arrivals have been found to be refugees. These myths, among others, need to be refuted if we are to reduce prejudice. </p>
<p>Levels of prejudice in Australian society can be reduced. Studies of both <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5343/">university students</a> and <a href="http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/17747/">older Australians in the community</a> show attitudes can become more positive. This is important, as individuals can turn into a critical mass that can change social norms and government policy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Pedersen receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Hartley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>According to a poll taken last December, 60% of those surveyed think the Australian government should “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers”. What’s behind this negative sentiment (otherwise…Anne Pedersen, Associate Professor in Psychology, Murdoch UniversityLisa Hartley, Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights Education, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/238442014-02-28T15:41:26Z2014-02-28T15:41:26ZThe neurochemistry of power has implications for political change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42765/original/m45p75qb-1393601878.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1280%2C979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Brain power.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://pixabay.com/en/human-brain-think-20424/">Pixaby</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Power, especially absolute and unchecked power, is intoxicating. Its effects occur at the cellular and neurochemical level. They are manifested behaviourally in a variety of ways, ranging from heightened cognitive functions to lack of inhibition, poor judgement, extreme narcissism, perverted behaviour, and gruesome cruelty.</p>
<p>The primary neurochemical involved in the reward of power that is known today is dopamine, the same chemical transmitter responsible for producing a sense of pleasure. Power activates the very same reward circuitry in the brain and creates an addictive “high” in much the same way as drug addiction. Like addicts, most people in positions of power will seek to maintain the high they get from power, sometimes at all costs. When withheld, power – like any highly addictive agent – produces cravings at the cellular level that generate strong behavioural opposition to giving it up. </p>
<p>In accountable societies, checks and balances exist to avoid the inevitable consequences of power. Yet, in cases where leaders possess absolute and unchecked power, changes in leadership and transitions to more consensus-based rule are unlikely to be smooth. Gradual withdrawal of absolute power is the only way to ensure that someone will be able to accept relinquishing it.</p>
<h2>Dopamine and addiction</h2>
<p>Human beings are characterised by <a href="http://sustainablehistory.com/emotional-amoral-egoism.html">“emotional amoral egoism”</a>. Humans are emotionally driven and (for most of us, most of the time), our moral compass is malleable and heavily influenced by circumstances, survival value, and our perceived “emotional self-interest”. Emotions, however, are not immaterial: they are neurochemically-mediated and physical in so far as they have neurochemical correspondents.</p>
<p>Dopamine is responsible for producing a sense of pleasure and helps us to retain information and engage in reward-driven learning. It is released in certain parts of the brain by rewarding experiences, such as achievement, food consumption, and other pleasures of life. However it is also produced in behaviours that may be unhealthy and life-threatening, such as substance abuse or gambling. Either way, dopamine release is what makes people want to re-engage in these activities.</p>
<p>Dopamine activates a <a href="http://www.scilearn.com/blog/dopamine-learning-brains-reward-center-teach-educators.php">reward system</a> that has been essential to our survival as a species, encouraging us to return to behaviour that is essential for life. This process is what I have previously called the “<a href="http://sustainablehistory.com/sustainable-history.html">neurochemical gratification principle</a>” (NGP), where even the expectation of a reward is believed to function in a similar way to reward itself.</p>
<p>Yet, just as healthy behaviour is repeatedly induced by our reward systems, so too is unhealthy behaviour. Drugs, such as cocaine, nicotine and amphetamines, also lead to an increase of dopamine in the reward system of the brain. Addiction is an extreme form of behaviour that employs existing neuronal networks that produce manic behaviour, manifested as elation, increased cognition and grandiose self-perceptions. <a href="http://inewp.com/a-pathology-of-evil-manic-depression-may-explain-tyrannical-rulers/">Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon</a>, for example, all appeared incapable of empathy and of comprehending the value of human life, condemning thousands to death in suicidal military campaigns. Yet, it is likely that power itself (rather than any specific behavioural aberration), may have been responsible for exaggerating certain behavioural traits that each individual exhibited.</p>
<h2>Dopamine and power</h2>
<p>The brain is neurochemically pre-programmed to seek pleasure, regardless of its social acceptability or how it is derived. We are therefore, all addicts, of one sort or another, to the extent that we are all engaged in pursuits that ensure dopamine and other neurochemicals flow. As such, we all avoid doing things that would result in dopamine withdrawal. In a similar way to drug addicts and alcoholics, people find it hard to admit that they are addicts of acceptance/esteem/power because of dopamine withdrawals that would result in doing so. Moreover, stopping addictive behaviour that is harmful to self or others is not simply a question of will power.</p>
<p>Much like addictive drugs, power uses these ready-made reward circuitries, producing extreme pleasure. In moderate amounts, dopamine can enhance <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-winner-effect/201211/new-pharaoh-and-the-fiscal-cliff">dimensions of cognitive function</a>, but may also make people impulsive, less risk-averse and less empathetic. High levels of dopamine are associated with a sense of personal destiny, risk-taking, preoccupation with the cosmic or religion, and emotional detachment that can lead to ruthlessness, and an obsession with achieving goals and conquests.</p>
<p>Absolute power can also lead people to believe that <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-winner-effect/201209/god-power-and-ahmadinejad">a spiritual force</a> is guiding them even within established democracies. For example, former US president George Bush told people that God wanted him to wage war against Iraq and his ally in the Iraq War, and former British prime minister Tony Blair is also thought to have believed that God wanted him to take the country into war to combat evil. </p>
<p>The certainty that such leaders seem to possess is a symptom of extremely high levels of dopamine. Not only are powerful individuals likely to be egocentric, but also paranoid. The latter may be a consequence of self-deception in the face of conflicting advice from close associates.</p>
<h2>Neuro-politics and political change</h2>
<p>The neurochemistry of power has implications for politics and for political change. Since power activates our neuronal reward systems in the brain and, as such, is addictive, people in positions of unchecked power are likely to lack the self-awareness required to act with restraint or to seek a consensual form of decision making. </p>
<p>Dictators are, therefore, more likely to appear in situations where checks and balances are not present or consolidated. Brutality and a lack of regard for citizens of countries governed by leaders with absolute power will tend to be the rule, regardless of the psychological state of the ruler.</p>
<p>Since sudden withdrawal of power like the abrupt withdrawal from drugs produces uncontrollable cravings, those who possess power, especially absolute power, are highly unlikely to give it up willingly, smoothly and without human and material loss. It is important to remember that power, like all human emotions, is neurochemically mediated and that unchecked power can create irrational, addicted and destructive impulses.</p>
<p><em>This article originally appeared in <a href="http://politicsinspires.org/">Politics in Spires</a>, a collaborative blog that shares thoughts on politics and international relations from scholars at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23844/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nayef Al-Rodhan is Senior Fellow and Centre Director of the Centre for the Geopolitics of Globalisation and Transnational Security at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Geneva, Switzerland. Author of Emotional Amoral Egoism: A Neurophilosophical Theory of Human Nature and its Universal Security Implications. He also writes for the blog Politics in Spires</span></em></p>Power, especially absolute and unchecked power, is intoxicating. Its effects occur at the cellular and neurochemical level. They are manifested behaviourally in a variety of ways, ranging from heightened…Nayef Al-Rodhan, Senior Associate Member, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/181432014-01-15T19:14:03Z2014-01-15T19:14:03ZWhat you think is right may actually be wrong – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38798/original/44mnz64n-1389321123.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">I think, but am I wrong?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/seatbelt67</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We like to think that we reach conclusions by reviewing facts, weighing evidence and analysing arguments. But this is not how humans usually operate, particularly when decisions are important or need to be made quickly.</p>
<p>What we usually do is arrive at a conclusion independently of conscious reasoning and then, and only if required, search for reasons as to why we might be right.</p>
<p>The first process, drawing a conclusion from evidence or facts, is called inferring; the second process, searching for reasons as to why we might believe something to be true, is called rationalising. </p>
<h2>Rationalise vs infer</h2>
<p>That we rationalise more than we infer seems counter-intuitive, or at least uncomfortable, to a species that prides itself on its ability to reason, but it is borne out by the work of many researchers, including the US psychologist and <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2002/kahneman-bio.html">Nobel Laureate</a> <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ekahneman/">Daniel Kahneman</a> (most recently in his book <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Thinking_Fast_and_Slow.html?id=ZuKTvERuPG8C">Thinking Fast and Slow</a>). </p>
<p>We tend to prefer conclusions that fit our existing world-view, and that don’t require us to change a pleasant and familiar narrative. We are also more inclined to accept these conclusions, intuitively leaping to them when they are presented, and to offer resistance to conclusions that require us to change or seriously examine existing beliefs.</p>
<p>There are many ways in which our brains help us to do this.</p>
<h2>Consider global warming</h2>
<p>Is global warming too difficult to understand? Your brain makes a substitution for you: what do you think of environmentalists? It then transfers that (often emotional) impression, positive or negative, to the issue of global warming and presents a conclusion to you in sync with your existing views.</p>
<p>Your brain also helps to make sense of situations in which it has minimal data to work with by creating associations between pieces of information.</p>
<p>If we hear the words “refugee” and “welfare” together, we cannot help but weave a narrative that makes some sort of coherent story (what Kahneman calls <em>associative coherence</em>). The more we hear this, the more familiar and ingrained the narrative. Indeed, the process of creating a coherent narrative has been shown to be more convincing to people than facts, even when the facts behind the narrative are shown to be wrong (understood as the <a href="http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/1979-1984/80ALR.html">perseverance of social theories</a> and involved in the <a href="http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/">Backfire Effect</a>).</p>
<p>Now, if you are a politician or a political advisor, knowing this sort of thing can give you a powerful tool. It is far more effective to create, modify or reinforce particular narratives that fit particular world-views, and then give people reasons as to why they may be true, than it is to provide evidence and ask people to come to their own conclusions.</p>
<p>It is easier to help people rationalise than it is to ask them to infer. More plainly, it is easier to lay down a path for people to follow than it is to allow them to find their own. Happily for politicians, this is what our brains like doing.</p>
<h2>How politicians frame issues</h2>
<p>This can be done in two steps. The first is to frame an issue in a way that reinforces or modifies a particular perspective. The cognitive scientist <a href="http://georgelakoff.com">George Lakoff</a> highlighted the use of the phrase “tax relief” by the American political right in the 1990s.</p>
<p>Consider how this positions any debate around taxation levels. Rather than taxes being a “community contribution” the word “relief” suggests a burden that should be lifted, an unfair load that we carry, perhaps beyond our ability to bear.</p>
<p>The secret, and success, of this campaign was to get both the opposing parties and the media to use this language, hence immediately biasing any discussion.</p>
<p>Interestingly, it was also an initiative of the American Republican party to <a href="http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/gw-language-choices.pdf">rephrase the issue</a> of “global warming” into one of “climate change”, which seemed more benign at the time.</p>
<h2>Immigration becomes security</h2>
<p>In recent years we have seen immigration as an issue disappear, it is now framed almost exclusively as an issue of “national security”. All parties and the media now talk about it in this language.</p>
<p>Once the issue is appropriately framed, substitution and associations can be made for us. Talk of national security allows us to talk about borders, which may be porous, or even crumbling. This evokes emotional reactions that can be suitably manipulated.</p>
<p>Budgets can be “in crisis” or in “emergency” conditions, suggesting the need for urgent intervention, or rescue missions. Once such positions are established, all that is needed are some reasons to believe them.</p>
<p>The great thing about rationalisation is that we get to select the reasons we want – that is, those that will support our existing conclusions. Our <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eachaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html">confirmation bias</a>, a tendency to notice more easily those reasons or examples that confirm our existing ideas, selects just those reasons that suit our purpose. The job of the politician, of course, is to provide them.</p>
<p>Kahneman notes that the more familiar a statement or image, the more it is accepted. It is the reason that messages are repeated <em>ad nauseam</em>, and themes are paraphrased and recycled in every media appearance. Pretty soon, they seem like our own.</p>
<h2>How to think differently</h2>
<p>So what does this mean for a democracy in which citizens need to be independent thinkers and autonomous actors? Well, it shows that the onus is not just on politicians to change their behaviour (after all, one can hardly blame them for doing what works), but also on us to continually question our own positions and judgements, to test ourselves by examining our beliefs and recognising rationalisation when we engage in it.</p>
<p>More than this, it means public debate, through the media in particular, needs to challenge preconceptions and resist the trend to simple assertion. We are what we are, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work better with it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18143/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We like to think that we reach conclusions by reviewing facts, weighing evidence and analysing arguments. But this is not how humans usually operate, particularly when decisions are important or need to…Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/170342013-08-25T20:26:32Z2013-08-25T20:26:32ZJokers to the right: why conservatives are happier<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29470/original/vywfz25g-1376867031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When you're smiling: research has previously shown the more politically conservative you are, the happier you tend to be. But how true is it?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Although Labor supporters may find it easier to smile since the impending election became something of a contest in June, Coalition voters may always have more to smile about. It has nothing to do with poll results: research suggests that the more politically conservative you are, the happier you tend to be.</p>
<p>Given the mischief that a political operator - scrupulous or otherwise - could cause with this claim (particularly under the guise of scientific respectability), two questions are important. How strong is the evidence that conservatives are happier, and why are conservatives actually happier?</p>
<p>Before probing further, caution is required. In this research, “happiness”, “satisfaction with life”, and “subjective well-being” are used interchangeably, without discussion about if and how they differ (and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23436768">other studies</a> have examined the more general concept of “psychological well-being”).</p>
<p>Furthermore, political ideology may be too complex to place on a unidimensional continuum: where does the person who is socially progressive but economically conservative fall on this spectrum, for instance?</p>
<h2>How strong is the evidence?</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/social/pdf/AreWeHappyYet.pdf">2006 survey</a> by the Pew Research Centre in the US aroused interest in the ideology-happiness link. In this survey, 45% of Republicans reported being very happy compared to 30% of Democrats. This result was followed up in three peer-reviewed articles. The <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/6/565.abstract">first</a> found evidence of the effect with a large sample but failed to report a measure of its magnitude. </p>
<p>In two <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009265661100170X">subsequent</a> <a href="http://spp.sagepub.com/content/4/1/6.abstract">articles</a>, the correlation between ideology and happiness ranged from .08 to .18. In other words, ideology explains at most about 3% of the variation in happiness. Using conventional standards, a researcher in a fit of generosity may label this “small, possibly approaching medium”.</p>
<p>In one sense, these small effects are intuitive: of all the factors that might influence your happiness, is ideology really that important?</p>
<h2>Why are conservatives happier?</h2>
<p>Let’s assume that the ideology-happiness association exists and is worth discussing further. Why might someone with conservative views be happier?</p>
<p>For starters, conservatives tend to be wealthier, more religious and married. Ideology itself may have little to do with happiness: rather, it is these characteristics associated with it that are important. In this sense, small observed ideology-happiness associations are surprising. If ideology is a proxy for these other variables, shouldn’t the ideology-happiness link be stronger?</p>
<p>The original research article proposed several other explanations for the link, but found strongest evidence for system justification. According to this explanation, conservatives are better able to justify current economic, social and political systems and the inequality they entail. In others words, conservatives tend to have greater capacity to rationalise the rich-poor divide. </p>
<p>For this reason, system justification has also been labelled opposition to equality. The two subsequent articles, however, found other variables to be better predictors of happiness than system justification, including religiosity, moral attitudes and number of group memberships.</p>
<p>Another alternative explanation for uncertainty over system justification is that each of the six studies measuring system justification in these three articles measured it differently. One study asked for responses to statements like: “our society should do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed”, and another that: “group equality should be our ideal”. </p>
<p>The former statement is arguably about equality of opportunity and the latter about equality of outcome. Even someone with liberal views may favour providing the disadvantaged with the opportunity for positive outcomes over providing the outcomes themselves. And even a staunch conservative who opposes handouts to the disadvantaged may support greater opportunities for the disadvantaged to succeed.</p>
<p>So whether or not opposition to equality is the reason conservatives are happier may depend on whether we are talking about equality of outcome or opportunity.</p>
<h2>The ideology-happiness link in Australia</h2>
<p>No Australian research data on system justification and the ideology-happiness link has been published. Might we expect Australia, with its strong tradition of egalitarianism, to be different to other countries? Perhaps not.</p>
<p>In his recently-released book <a href="https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/component/k2/105-abr-previews/1576-battlers-and-billionaires">Battlers and Billionaires</a>, Labor MP Andrew Leigh presented data indicating that although Australians generally support greater equality, Labor voters tended to favour redistribution of income more than Coalition voters (note that this is more about outcome than opportunity).</p>
<p>So even in Australia, conservatives are generally more comfortable justifying inequality. But are they are happier as a result? Or are they happier, but for some other reason?</p>
<p>Perhaps Australian conservatives perceive Labor governments as symptoms of “temporary electoral insanity” (to <a href="http://www.nswalp.com/about/labor-history/the-whitlam-years/">quote</a> former Liberal senator Reg Withers) and are happy knowing that sanity will eventually prevail. And would a Labor victory in next month’s election weaken the ideology-happiness link? Perhaps not – research in other countries suggests that conservatives are happier than liberals irrespective of party in power.</p>
<p>Or perhaps it is the case that Australians, with our history of relative political apathy, are more easily able to detach emotional states from political views.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Costa receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.</span></em></p>Although Labor supporters may find it easier to smile since the impending election became something of a contest in June, Coalition voters may always have more to smile about. It has nothing to do with…Dan Costa, Lecturer and Researcher in Psychology, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.