Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Political ideologies as social strategies: does ideological variation predict behavioral variation in cooperative dilemmas?

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ideological research links liberal and conservative orientations to variations in genetic, psychological, and physiological factors. Yet, while a knowledge of the mechanistic causes of ideologies are advancing quickly, we know less about their potential functional causality. Here, we ask what the social functions of ideologies are and investigate whether the behaviors associated with different ideological orientations are consistent with different strategies for social interactions. We recruit an American sample of (N = 454) liberals and conservatives to complete two rounds of an iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Using a three-wave design, we obtain a sample of each ideological group that is comparable on multiple demographic factors. We hypothesize that a liberal orientation is underpinned by an approach-oriented social strategy that is directed towards pursuing cooperative opportunities, while a conservative orientation is underpinned by a social strategy directed towards avoiding loss. On multiple measures of ideology, we find evidence that liberals and conservatives differ in their: (1) initial cooperativeness; (2) overall cooperation; and, (3) forgiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets and replication code generated during the current study are available in the OSF repository: https://osf.io/82mtg/?view_only=4e10a37a57b5495db07dcf876bcc2398

Notes

  1. The following approach and avoidance scales are included in the Thielmann et al. meta-analysis: the BIS/BAS (Carver & White, 1994), the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Rewards Questionnaire (Torrubia et al., 2001), the Temperament and Character Inventory (Cloninger, 1987), the Adult Measure of Behavioral Inhibition (Gladstone & Parker, 2005), the Multi-Motive Grid (Sokolowski et al., 2000), the Regulatory Focus Scale (Lockwood et al., 2002) and, the Sociability and Shyness Scale (Cheek & Buss, 1981).

References

  • Ahn, W.-Y., Kishida, K. T., Xiaosi, G., Lohrenz, T., Harvey, A., Alford, J. R., Smith, K. B., et al. (2014). Nonpolitical images evoke neural predictors of political ideology. Current Biology, 24(22), 2693–2699.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2004). The origin of politics: An evolutionary theory of political behavior. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 707–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007). Personal, interpersonal, and political temperaments. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614(1), 196–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011). The politics of mate choice. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 362–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1246–1247.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. R., Mellor, J. M., & Milyo, J. (2005). Do liberals play nice? In The effects of party and political ideology in public goods and trust games. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. H. (1993). Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma: Experimental evidence. The Economic Journal, 103(418), 570–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balliet, D., Tybur, J. M., Junhui, W., Antonellis, C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2018). Political ideology, trust, and cooperation: In-group favoritism among Republicans and Democrats during a US national election. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(4), 797–818.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beramendi, P., Raymond M. Duch, and Akitaka Matsuo. “When lab subjects meet real people: Comparing different modes of experiments.” In Asian Political Methodology Conference, Taipai, Taiwan. Retrieved from https://cessweb.nuff.ox.ac.uk/files/pdfs/working_papers/CESS_DP2014_003.pdf. 2014.

  • Bergmüller, R., Schürch, R., & Hamilton, I. M. (2010). Evolutionary causes and consequences of consistent individual variation in cooperative behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2751–2764.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, H., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). Group affiliation and altruistic norm enforcement. American Economic Review, 96(2), 217–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet, I. (1999). The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. In Economics as a Science of Human Behaviour (pp. 177–194). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. Journal of economic behavior and organization, 38(1), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Zorn, C. J. (2001). Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 972–988.

  • Boyd, R., & Lorberbaum, J. P. (1987). No pure strategy is evolutionarily stable in the repeated prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature, 327(6117), 58–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D. L., Schonger, M., & Wickens, C. (2016). oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9, 88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirumbolo, A., Leone, L., & Desimoni, M. (2016). The interpersonal roots of politics: Social value orientation, socio-political attitudes and prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 144–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., Fischer, K., Chaudhuri, A., Sibley, C. G., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2020). The dual evolutionary foundations of political ideology. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 336–345.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 2053168015622072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants: A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(6), 573–588.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M., Lindqvist E., Loewen, P., Östling, O., Bonde, M. et al. (2012). Generosity and political preferences, IFN working paper, No. 941, Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Stockholm. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/81449/1/wp941.pdf.

  • Dodd, M. D., Balzer, A., Jacobs, C. M., Gruszczynski, M. W., Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2012). The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 640–649.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., Du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(1), 75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Z., Peysakhovich, A., & Rand, D. G. (2016). The good, the bad, and the unflinchingly selfish: Cooperative decision-making can be predicted with high accuracy when using only three behavioral types. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (pp. 547–559).

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785–791.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & Jervis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 813–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C. L., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., Eaves, L. J., & Hibbing, J. R. (2013). Genetic and environmental transmission of political orientations. Political Psychology, 34(6), 805–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Shang, E. H. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 111–133.

  • Gladstone, G., & Parker, G. (2005). Measuring a behaviorally inhibited temperament style: development and initial validation of new self-report measures. Psychiatry Research, 135(2), 133–143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grünhage, T., & Reuter, M. (2022). Political orientation is associated with behavior in Public-Goods-and Trust-Games, Political  Behavior, 44, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09606-5.

  • Grünhage, T., & Reuter, M. (2021). Tell me who you vote for, and i’ll tell you who you are? The associations of political orientation with personality and prosocial behavior and the plausibility of evolutionary approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.656725.

  • Haesevoets, T., Folmer, C. R., & Van Hiel, A. (2015). Cooperation in mixed–motive games: The role of individual differences in selfish and social orientation. European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 445–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halali, E., Dorfman, A., Jun, S., & Halevy, N. (2018a). More for us or more for me? Social dominance as parochial egoism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 254–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, Y., Tamir, M., Brahms, K. S., Christopher Cohrs, J., & Halperin, E. (2018). Are liberals and conservatives equally motivated to feel empathy toward others? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(10), 1449–1459.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., Oskarsson, S., Littvay, L., Dawes, C. T., Verhulst, B., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282–294.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Henningham, J. P. (1996). A 12-item scale of social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(4), 517–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2004). Accepting authoritative decisions: Humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 62–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2013). Predisposed: Liberals, conservatives, and the biology of political differences. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and brain sciences, 37(297–307), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, T., Doster, J., & Joe, V. C. (1997). The relationship of conservatism and cognitive-complexity. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(2), 297–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hufer, A., Kornadt, A. E., Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2020). Genetic and environmental variation in political orientation in adolescence and early adulthood: A Nuclear Twin Family analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 762.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Imhof, L. A., Fudenberg, D., & Nowak, M. A. (2005). Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(31), 10797–10800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 120–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (2009). “Elective affinities”: On the psychological bases of left–right differences. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 129–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Glaser,  J., Kruglanski, A. W.,  & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Exceptions that prove the rule--Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas, 383.

  • Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (2011). The statistical analysis of failure time data (Vol. 360). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. D., Cranmer, S. J., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). When it’s not all about me: Altruism, participation, and political context. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1008208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21(8), 677–680.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political orientation: the roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 633.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., & Shiota, M. N. (2008). Approach and avoidance motivation(s): An evolutionary perspective. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 273–288). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerry, N., & Murray, D. R. (2019). Is formidability associated with political conservatism? Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(2), 220–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerry, N., & Murray, D. R. (2020). Politics and parental care: Experimental and mediational tests of the causal link between parenting motivation and social conservatism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(2), 284–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Do bedroom eyes wear political glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(2), 100–108.

  • Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2013). The dating preferences of liberals and conservatives. Political Behavior, 35(3), 519–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. (2005). Experiments investigating cooperative types in humans: A complement to evolutionary theory and simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(5), 1803–1807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, V., Paul, A. M., Bekkers, R., Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2012). Are Conservatives Less Likely to be Prosocial than Liberals? From Games to Ideology, Political Preferences and Votingg. European Journal of Personality, 26(5), 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeper, T. (2019). https://thomasleeper.com/software.html.

  • Lloyd, E. A., & Feldman, M. W. (2002). Commentary: Evolutionary psychology: A view from evolutionary biology. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 150–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loewen, P. J. (2010). Affinity, antipathy and political participation: How our concern for others makes us vote. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 43(3), 661–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg, B. (1996). Nucleus and shield: The evolution of social structure in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. American Sociological Review ,61(2), pp. 278–307.

  • Mansell, J. (2018). Social cues and ideology: Unpacking the adaptive significance of liberal-conservative behavioral differences. Politics and the Life Sciences, 37(1), 32–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mansell, J. (2020). Ideology and social cognition: Are liberals and conservatives differentially affected by social cues about group inequality? Politics and the Life Sciences, 39(1), 9–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, J. L. (2013). A map of the field of ideological analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 18(3), 299–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, K. A., Smith, V. L., & LePore, M. (2000). Intentionality detection and “mindreading”: Why does game form matter? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(8), 4404–4409.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElreath, R., & Strimling, P. (2006). How noisy information and individual asymmetries can make ‘personality’an adaptation: a simple model. Animal Behaviour, 72(5), 1135–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez, M. F. (2017). A neurology of the conservative-liberal dimension of political ideology. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 29(2), 86–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. O., & Ackermann, K. A. (2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 13–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. science, 314(5805), 1560–1563.

  • Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2016). The political divide over same-sex marriage: Mating strategies in conflict? Psychological Science, 27(4), 435–442.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S. H., & Davidov, E. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32(4), 537–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C., & Van Lange, P. A. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta–analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(1), 62–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, J. D., & Murray, G. R. (2017). Perceptions of political leaders. Politics and the Life Sciences, 36(2), 60–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P. (2013). Red brain, blue brain: Evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLoS One, 8(2), e52970.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31(3), 421–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2009). Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli, and attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 995–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shook, N. J., Ford, C. G., & Boggs, S. T. (2017). Dangerous worldview: A mediator of the relation between disgust sensitivity and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 252–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokolowski, K., Schmalt, H. D., Langens, T. A., & Puca, R. M. (2000). Assessing achievement, affiliation, and power motives all at once: The Multi-Motive Grid (MMG). Journal of Personality Assessment, 74(1), 126–145.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns, S. C. (1989). Trade-offs in life-history evolution. Functional Ecology, 3(3), 259–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsson, K. M., & Vostroknutov, A. (2017). Small-world conservatives and rigid liberals: Attitudes towards sharing in self-proclaimed left and right. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 135, 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 175–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Moltó, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 837–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuschman, A. (2013). Our political nature: The evolutionary origins of what divides us. Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tybur, J. M., Merriman, L. A., Hooper, A. E. C., McDonald, M. M., & Navarrete, C. D. (2010). Extending the behavioral immune system to political psychology: Are political conservatism and disgust sensitivity really related? Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4), 147470491000800406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tybur, J. M., Inbar, Y., Güler, E., & Molho, C. (2015). Is the relationship between pathogen avoidance and ideological conservatism explained by sexual strategies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6), 489–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tybur, J. M., Inbar, Y., Aarøe, L., Barclay, P., Barlow, F. K., De Barra, M., Becker, D. V.  et al. (2016). Parasite stress and pathogen avoidance relate to distinct dimensions of political ideology across 30 nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(44), 12408–12413.

  • Vigil, J. M. (2010). Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 547–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinschenk, A. C., Dawes, C. T., Oskarsson, S., Klemmensen, R., & Nørgaard, A. S. (2021). The relationship between political attitudes and political participation: Evidence from monozygotic twins in the United States, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark. Electoral Studies, 69, 102269.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, S. A., Gardner, A., Shuker, D. M., Reynolds, T., Burton-Chellow, M., Sykes, E. M., Guinnee, M. A., & Griffin, A. S. (2006). Cooperation and the scale of competition in humans. Current Biology, 16(11), 1103–1106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist?: culture, genes, and the welfare of others. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., & Axelrod, R. (1995). How to cope with noise in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(1), 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamboni, G., Gozzi, M., Krueger, F., Duhamel, J.-R., Sirigu, A., & Grafman, J. (2009). Individualism, conservatism, and radicalism as criteria for processing political beliefs: a parametric fMRI study. Social Neuroscience, 4(5), 367–383.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this project was provided in 2018 by the Interacting Minds Centre at Aarhus University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Network for Economic and Social Change, Western University, London, ON, Canada

    Jordan Mansell

  2. Department of Politics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Michael Bang Petersen

Authors
  1. Jordan Mansell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Bang Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordan Mansell.

Ethics declarations

We declare that there are not competing financial or non-financial interets related to this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 3.01 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mansell, J., Petersen, M.B. Political ideologies as social strategies: does ideological variation predict behavioral variation in cooperative dilemmas?. Curr Psychol 42, 22605–22622 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03403-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03403-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation