Advertisement

How Do Cognitive Styles Influence Political Attitudes? A Joint Consideration of Dual-Process Model and Construal Level Theory

Chapter
  • 293 Downloads
Part of the Identity in a Changing World book series (ICW)

Abstract

Recent correlational and experimental studies demonstrate that differences in people’s thinking styles have an impact on their political attitudes. Whereas the dual process model of mind relates social conservative attitudes to intuitive (vs. analytical) thinking style, construal level theory links abstract (i.e., concrete) thinking style to political consistency and polarization. Although empirical backing for each position is rather strong, there are some mixed findings regarding the causal influence of these thinking styles on political attitudes. Moreover, there is no approach that combines findings from these two theoretical approaches. In this chapter, after summarizing relevant findings in the literature, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both theoretical approaches and the boundary conditions of the effects in question.

Keywords

Analytical Intuitive Abstract Concrete Thinking styles Political attitudes 

References

  1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  2. Alper, S. (2018). An abstract mind is a principled one: Abstract mindset increases consistency in responses to political attitude scales. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 89–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alper, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2019). How is the Big Five related to moral and political convictions: The moderating role of the WEIRDness of the culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 145, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.018
  4. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, J. (2017). Comment on Kahan and Corbin: Can polarization increase with actively open-minded thinking? Research & Politics, 4(1), 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016688122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bomstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., Tellegen, A., McGue, M., Keyes, M., & Krueger, R. (2003). Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the WilsonPatterson Conservatism Scale: A reared-apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(6), 959–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandt, M. J., Evans, A. M., & Crawtbrd, J. T. (2015). The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors. Psychological Science, 26(2), 189–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgoon, E. M., Henderson, M. D., & Markman, A. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 501–520.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S. H., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. Chan, E. Y. (2016). Reconstruing politics: The dual impacts of abstraction on political ideology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 649–656.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deppe, K. D., Gonzalez, F. J., Neiman, J. L., Jacobs, C., Pahlke, J., Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2015). Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4), 314–331.Google Scholar
  16. Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2009). On the automaticity of the status quo. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 85–105). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., Goodman, J. A., & Blanchar, J. C. (2012). Low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 808–820.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Pattershall, J. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 765–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, J. S. B. T., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eyal, T., & Liberman, N. (2012). Morality and psychological distance: A construal level theory perspective. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Herzliya series on personality and social psychology (pp. 185–202). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  23. Eysenck, H. J. (1954). The psychology of politics. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.Google Scholar
  24. Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104(01), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336(6080), 493–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goel, V., Buchel, C., Frith, C., & Dolan, R. J. (2000). Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. NeuroImage, 12(5), 504–514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  31. Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., Peterson, J. C., & Feher, B. (2014). The deeper sources of political conflict: Evidence from the psychological, cognitive, and neuro-sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 111–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodson, G. (2014). Is it impolite to discuss cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 313–314.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13002574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS One, 7(8), e42366.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  35. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., & Carvallo, M. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jost, J. T., Sterling, J., & Stern, C. (2017). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In C. Kopetz & A. Fishbach (Eds.), The motivation-cognition interface; From the lab to the real world: A Festschrift in honor of Arie W. Kruglanski. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424.Google Scholar
  42. Kahn, D. T., & Bjorklund, F. (2017). Judging those closest from afar: The effect of psychological distance and abstraction on value-judgment correspondence in responses to ingroup moral transgressions. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23, 153–161.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kimchi, R., & Palmer, S. E. (1982). Form and texture in hierarchically constructed patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 521–535.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., … Cook, A. (2004). Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1136–1150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Landy, J. F. (2016). Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features. Judgment and Decision making, 11(5), 496–508.Google Scholar
  48. Ledgerwood, A., Trope, Y., & Chaiken, S. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 32–51.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019843CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201–1205.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161958CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 364–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Luguri, J. B., & Napier, J. (2013). Of two minds: The interactive effect of construal level and identity on political polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 972–977.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Luguri, J. B., Napier, J. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Reconstruing intolerance: Abstract thinking reduces conservatives’ prejudice against nonnormative groups. Psychological Science, 23, 756–763.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611433877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German Ideology. (C. J. Arthur, Ed.). New York: International Publishers. (Original work published 1846).Google Scholar
  54. Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T. C., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., … Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), e16.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2005). Automatic processing of dominance and submissiveness. Experimental Psychology, 52, 296–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Napier, J. L., & Luguri, J. (2013). Moral mind-sets: Abstract thinking increases a preference for “individualizing” over “binding” moral foundations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 754–759. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473783.
  58. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123(3), 335–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Piazza, J., & Sousa, P. (2014). Religiosity, political orientation, and consequentialist moral thinking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 334–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sanchez, C., Sundermeier, B., Gray, K., & Calin-Jageman, R. J. (2017). Direct replication of Gervais & Norenzayan (2012): No evidence that analytic thinking decreases religious belief. PLoS One, 12(2), e0172636.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saribay, S. A., Olcaysoy, I., & Yilmaz, O. (2017). Ki isel ve toplumsal dUzeylerde e itlige kar tthk ve degi ime direnmenin muhafazakarhkla ili kisi [The relationship between conservatism and opposition to equality and resistance to change at the personal and societal levels]. Turk Psikoloji Yazzlan [Turkish Psychological Articles], 20, 24–41.Google Scholar
  62. Saribay, S. A., & Yilmaz, O. (2017). Analytic cognitive style and cognitive ability differentially predict religiosity and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saribay, S. A., & Yilmaz, O. (2018). Relationships between core ideological motives, social and economic conservatism, and religiosity: Evidence from a Turkish sample. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21(3), 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scott, W. A. (1960). International ideology and interpersonal ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E., & Ledgerwood, A. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 525–548.  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sterling, J., Jost, J. T., & Pennycook, G. (2016). Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit? Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 352–360.Google Scholar
  70. Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. (1977). Integrative complexity of communications in international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(1), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Integrative complexity at forty: Steps toward resolving the scoring dilemma. Political Psychology, 35(5), 597–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Talhelm, T., Haidt, J., Oishi, S., Zhang, X., Miao, F. F., & Chen, S. (2015). Liberals think more analytically (more “WEIRD”) than conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 250–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tremoliere, B., Neys, W. D., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2012). Mortality salience and morality: Thinking about death makes people less utilitarian. Cognition, 124(3), 379–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Berkel, L., Crandall, C. S., Eidelman, S., & Blanchar, J. C. (2015). Hierarchy, dominance, and deliberation egalitarian values require mental effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1207–1222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yang, D. Y. J., Preston, J. L., & Hernandez, I. (2013). Polarized attitudes toward the ground zero mosque are reduced by high-level construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 244–250.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612446973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yılmaz, O., & Alper, S. (2019). The link between intuitive thinking and social conservatism is stronger in WEIRD societies. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 156–169.Google Scholar
  81. Yilmaz, O., & Bahçekapili, H. G. (2015). When science replaces religion: Science as a secular authority bolsters moral sensitivity. PLoS One, 10(9), e0137499.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yilmaz, O., & Bahçekapili, H. G. (2018). Meta-ethics and the mortality: Mortality salience leads people to adopt a less subjectivist morality. Cognition, 179, 171–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yilmaz, O., Karadoller, D. Z., & Sofuoglu, G. (2016). Analytic thinking, religion, and prejudice: An experimental test of the dual-process model of mind. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 26(4), 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yilmaz, O., & Saribay, S. A. (2016). An attempt to clarify the link between cognitive style and political ideology: A non-Western replication and extension. Judgment and Decision making, 11(3), 287–300.Google Scholar
  85. Yilmaz, O., & Saribay, S. A. (2017a). The relationship between cognitive style and political orientation depends on the measures used. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(2), 140–147.Google Scholar
  86. Yilmaz, O., & Saribay, S. A. (2017b). Analytic thought training promotes liberalism on contextualized (but not stable) political opinions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(7), 789–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yilmaz, O., & Saribay, S. A. (2017c). Activating analytic thinking enhances the value given to individualizing moral foundations. Cognition, 165, 88–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yilmaz, O., & Saribay, S. A. (2018a). Moral foundations explain unique variance in political ideology beyond resistance to change and opposition to equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22, 1124–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218781012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yilmaz, O., & Saribay, S. A. (2018b). Lower levels of resistance to change (but not opposition to equality) is related to analytic cognitive style. Social Psychology, 49, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yilmaz, O., & Saribay, S. A. (unpublished raw data). A preregistered conceptual replication attempt of Eidelman, Crandall, Goodman, & Blanchar (2012). https://osf.io/eyu8g/
  91. Yilmaz, O., Saribay, S. A., & Iyer, R. (2018). Are neo-liberals more intuitive? Undetected libertarians confound the relation between analytic cognitive style and economic conservatism.Google Scholar
  92. Yogeeswaran, K., & Dasgupta, N. (2014). The devil is in the details: Abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 772–789.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27.Google Scholar
  94. Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2011). The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relations are seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 98–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yaşar UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Kadir Has UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Boğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations