As most of us know, alcohol consumption
interferes with deliberative thought while leaving automatic
responding largely intact. The first study was done as people were
leaving a bar. Participants were asked to answer some questions and
exhale into a breathalyzer, which measured their blood alcohol level.
The questions included a ten item measure of
liberalism-conservatism, as well as whether they
considered themselves a liberal or a conservative. Statistically controlling for
gender, education and political ideology, the authors found that the
higher the participants' blood alcohol level, the more they scored
toward the conservative end of the scale. Both self-identified
liberals and conservatives were more conservative when they were
more intoxicated. (In case you're wondering, liberals and
conservatives were equally likely to get drunk.)
The other three studies were laboratory
experiments. In the second, students responded to another opinion
scale which measured liberalism and conservatism independently of one
another. Cognitive load was manipulated by requiring some
participants to perform a secondary task (counting tones of different
pitches) while filling out the questionnaire. The others merely
filled out the scale. Distraction was expected to interfere with
their ability to think about the opinion items. As predicted, the
participants with the higher cognitive load scored higher in
conservatism and lower in liberalism.
In a third study, participants rated
the favorability of liberal and conservative concepts such as “civil
rights” and “law and order.” Opportunity to think was
manipulated by giving some participants only 1.5 seconds to respond
to each item, while the others could take as long as they wanted.
The high time pressure subjects rated the conservative terms more
favorably. They also rated the liberal terms less favorably, but the
difference was not statistically significant.
Finally, in the last study,
participants rated the liberal and conservative concepts under
instructions to think quickly or slowly. In the low effort
condition, they were told to “give your first, immediate response
to the terms” and to not “think too hard.” In the high effort
condition, the instructions were to “think hard about each term,”
to “take your time and give a careful and thoughtful response.”
The task was followed by a pop quiz—a recognition memory test.
Participants were shown many concepts and asked to identify the ones
they had previously rated. The low effort participants rated the
conservative terms more favorably than the high effort participants.
(As before, the effect on liberal terms was not significant.) The
recognition memory task served as a measure of depth of thought and,
as predicted, it partially accounted for the relationship between low
effort thinking and conservatism. (That is, if you statistically
eliminate the effect of recognition memory scores, the relationship
between low effort and conservatism is reduced, but still
statistically significant.)
How do the authors explain these
results? First of all, they are not saying that conservatives are
less intelligent than liberals (although there is some evidence that
this is the case). Both liberals and conservatives were affected by
these manipulations. They are also not saying that conservative
ideology is cognitively simpler than liberalism (althought there is
quite a bit of evidence that this is true). In these studies,
independent samples rated the complexity of the liberal and
conservative statements and concepts to ensure that they were equally
difficult to understand.
Here's their argument: There are three
aspects of the content of conservative ideology, all of which
we are more likely to believe when processing information
automatically, but which we question when we engage in deliberate,
effortful thought. They are:
- a tendency to see people as personally responsible for their outcomes, rather than acknowledging that their behavior could be situationally caused.
- an acceptance of heirarchy—inequality between people and groups (such as the rich and the poor).
- a preference for the status quo rather than social change.
Since there is evidence that these three bulwarks of
conservative thought are more likely to occur when we are operating
on automatic pilot, distracting people, forcing them to respond in a
hurry, asking them not to think too hard, or getting them drunk all
will make them more conservative. It appears that conservative
thinking comes more easily to us. To avoid being reflexive
right wingers, we have to put down the beer, turn off the TV, and
think about it. That could be a sobering message.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.