What makes a conservative or a liberal

Scientists have been researching the psychological differences between people with different stances, and there are a few key ways that people on opposite ends of the political spectrum see the world. Here's what the data shows:. Decades of research have shown that people get more conservative when they feel threatened and afraid. During that time, the US saw a conservative shift , and Americans displayed increased support for military spending and for President George W.

Americans aren't the only ones whose political leanings are influenced by fear. A review of research conducted in five countries looked at 22 separate tests of the hypothesis that fear fuels conservative viewpoints and found it was universally true. Brain scans show that people who self-identify as conservative have larger and more active right amygdalas, an area of the brain that's associated with expressing and processing fear. This aligns with the idea that feeling afraid makes people lean more to the right.

One study showed conservative brains tend to have more activity in their right amygdalas when they're taking risks than liberals do. Groundbreaking research that Yale psychologists published in revealed that helping people imagine they're completely safe from harm can make them temporarily hold more liberal views on social issues.

The authors of that study said their results suggest that socially conservative views are driven, at least in part, by people's need to feel safe and secure. A study of college students showed that those with more socially conservative views were quicker to physically look away from disgusting images — like pictures of blood, feces, or vomit — than their liberal peers.

The self-reported social conservatives also stared longer at photos of other people reacting in disgust to icky stuff. This research backs up other studies that have suggested conservatives are more easily grossed out than liberals. A gut reaction of disgust is, evolutionarily speaking, a good thing for survival, since it helps humans keep some foreign and potentially dangerous secretions at bay.

But in our modern world, some research suggests this kind of aversion toward "impure" pathogens may also impact how people see other people who aren't like them, including social "out-groups" like immigrants or foreigners. A study at Northwestern University found that when conservative and liberal college students were given word problems to solve, both groups managed to arrive at some correct answers through gradual, analytical analysis. But when feeling stuck on a problem, liberals were much more likely to draw upon a sudden burst of insight — an 'aha' moment, like a lightbulb turning on in the brain.

This didn't mean that the liberals were any smarter than the conservatives. Rather, it showed that their brains had a tendency to reorganize their thoughts in more flexible ways, while the conservatives tended to take a more step-by-step approach. The researchers suggested this finding may indicate that liberals and conservatives prefer solving problems in different ways. Lead study author Carola Salvi said the results were consistent with what scientists already knew about the brains of people with different political leanings.

In , researchers at the University of Nebraska tested whether conservatives and liberals physically see the world in different ways. They found that when it comes to matching the gaze of other people, the two groups differ. The scientists measured this by having individual study participants watch a certain point on a computer screen and wait for a ball to show up in the frame.

Then they added a distracting human face on the screen before the ball appeared. The face's eyes would look around. And our brain represents them much as it does other forms of social identity. Among other things, partisan identity clouds memory.

In a study , liberals were more likely to misremember George W. Bush remaining on vacation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and conservatives were more likely to falsely recall seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran. Partisan identity also shapes our perceptions. If the objective was liberal opposing the military barring openly gay people from service , the conservatives were more likely to want the cops.

The opposite was true when participants thought it was a conservative protest opposing an abortion clinic. The more strongly we identify with a party, the more likely we are to double down on our support for it.

That tendency is exacerbated by rampant political misinformation and, too often, identity wins out over accuracy. If we understand what is at work cognitively, we might be able to intervene and try to ease some of the negative effects of partisanship.

The tension between accuracy and identity probably involves a brain region called the orbitofrontal cortex, which computes the value of goals and beliefs and is strongly connected to memory, executive function and attention. If identity helps determine the value of different beliefs, it can also distort them, Van Bavel says. Appreciating that political affiliation fulfills an evolutionary need to belong suggests we should create alternative means of belonging—depoliticizing the novel coronavirus by calling on us to come together as Americans, for instance.

And incentivizing the need to be accurate could increase the importance accorded that goal: paying money for accurate responses or holding people accountable for incorrect ones have been shown to be effective. It will be nearly impossible to lessen the partisan influences before the November 3 election because the volume of political information will only increase, reminding us of our political identities daily. But here is some good news: a large study at Harvard University found that participants consistently overestimated the level of out-group negativity toward their in-group.

In other words, the other side may not dislike us quite so much as we think. Inaccurate information heightened the negative bias, and more good news correcting inaccurate information significantly reduced it.

They believe regulation is necessitated when individuals, corporations, and industries demonstrate a willingness to pursue financial gain at an intolerable cost to society—and grow too powerful to be constrained by other social institutions. Liberals believe in systematic protections against hazardous workplaces, unsafe consumer products, and environmental pollution. They remain wary of the corruption — and historic abuses, particularly the oppression of political minorities — that have taken place in the absence of oversight for state and local authorities.

They believe the public welfare is promoted by cultivating a widely-tolerant and -permissive society. Political conservatives believe commercial regulation does more harm than good — unnecessarily usurping political freedoms, potentially stifling transformative innovations, and typically leading to further regulatory interference.

They endorse the contraction of governmental involvement in non-commercial aspects of society as well, calling upon the private sector to assume their activities. Conservatives call for the devolution of powers to the states, and believe locally-tailored solutions are more appropriate to local circumstances.

They promulgate individual responsibility, and believe a strong society is made up of citizens who can stand on their own. Conservatives believe in the importance of stability, and promote law and order to protect private property. Liberals believe in universal access to health care ; they believe personal health should be in no way dependent upon one's financial resources, and support government intervention to sever that link. Political conservatives prefer no government sponsorship of health care; they prefer all industries to be private, favor deregulation of commerce, and advocate a reduced role for government in all aspects of society.

They believe government should be in no way involved in one's healthcare purchasing decisions. He outlines the psychological differences in the following TED talk:. Haidt has also written a book, The Righteous Mind , based on his studies conducted over several years on liberal and conservative subjects. Nicholas Kristof, an avowed liberal, offered an unbiased review of the book and cited some interesting findings such as:. Liberals should not be confused with libertarians.

Libertarians believe that the role of the government should be extremely limited, especially in the economic sphere. They believe that governments are prone to corruption and inefficiencies and that the private sector in a free market can achieve better outcomes than government bureaucracies, because they make better decisions on resource allocation. Liberals, on the other hand, favor more government involvement because they believe there are several areas where the private sector -- especially if left unregulated -- needs checks and balances to ensure consumer protection.

The primary focus of libertarians is the maximization of liberty for all citizens, regardless of race , class, or socio-economic position. On fiscal issues such as taxes and government regulation, libertarian positions are similar to conservatives.

On foreign policy, liberals and conservatives in America have generally had attitudes; but libertarians prefer to not be interventionists or empire-builders. Share this comparison:. If you read this far, you should follow us:.

Diffen LLC, n. Granted they are describing the two extremes, these are very narrow views. Before I started my course I was very much conservative. I was naive and even mentioned a thing or two about that fact. I was attacked by the professor and classmates.

Today I have a good balance and not to the extreme of either side. Basically taking each side with a grain of salt. I do feel however that the reactionary behavior of liberals creates nausea in my stomach. Liberals devalue everything that had value not so long ago. Today there is chaos in place of norm. No hierarchy, no morality, and no logical thinking. What will happen if you topple the hierarchy? What will happen with no morality? And logical thinking… Where oh where in the entire world do you have as many welfare, elderly, vulnerable persons, social programs?

And yet the extreme liberal is still crying that its not enough. Will the liberal keep crying until there is no stable government to cry to??? So, what your saying is that the working class should be blind to what the wealthy are doing to them and just be corporate stooges. Because the federal government does belong to the masses, not corporations! And fascism is very right wing and conservative and reactionary. There is nothing progressive about Conservatism!

Conservatism ONLY benefits the richest people and makes the masses suffer in poverty to make the richest richer. You are wrong! Theres a reason why the right is reactionary, and the left is revolutionary! Right and left are polar opposites. The left believes in peace and equality. The right divides and conquers. Dont blur the lines of English language definitions.

The deceptive right wing confuses mixes up definitions to fool the masses into believing things that enable corporatism and income inequality. I think the true meaning of liberalism is backwards compared to the rest of the world.

Liberals are not elitists going to elite colleges and rich! Neo-liberal is economically conservative and socially liberal. That works! Social liberalism is common sense, everyone socially treated equal. Economic conservatism is to make the rich richer and poor poorer through divide and conquer tactics and oppressing labor movements! Mindfulness or Conservative thinking?? It is defeatist thinking. How about.. I mean hey its not so far removed.

What ever happened to civil discussions among caring people with different views? We can appreciate each others differences in thought if we are willing to listen respectfully to each other without trying to define one another in some specific category.

I disagree with the last 3 paragraphs of your opinion piece, as I have found them to be quite the opposite in my 55 years 30 of which have been politically active. I have long called myself a social conservative. I think it is very important to have standards for behaviour etiquette and defined roles. The problems with this system is not that it exists, but the lack of flexibility and the value placed on them.

There needs to be more discussion around finding a balance instead of so much effort being spent on trying make a utopia. As it stands now the social pendulum swings back and forth. People cannot make the right decisions all the time nor can they make the right decisions if they are not allowed to. I must apologize, but I got about half way through this article and realized this person was so clueless about how normal people live and think that she was completely irrelevant. It really is sad to see someone that is so out of touch with reality that she is just never going to be able to relate to normal people.

At least she can reside peacefully in some ultra liberal northeastern university and live out her life cluelessly, perhaps ultimately like a zoo exhibit as an about to be extinct human unsuccessful genetic deadend. I understand your assessment, but I strongly disagree with it. Yes, people are different, and some are relatively clueless, as you say, about others.

But some readers of this article have said they also have had to do this. Going along to get along is not a virtue, but the foundation of every problem we have faced in the past, and will face in the future. Classical liberalism is i. Then honestly tell me where you would rather live. I think one mistake that is made is the use of the work Liberal in the context you apply I would argue that Communist and Dictatorial societies are called Conservative, but bears little if any resemblance to what we refer to as a Conservative politically in the USA.

This was a painful read. The author treats American Preservationists as if they are a majority of Republicans. Republicans are merely co-belligerents against a common enemy. I agree with this article, but would take it a step further. This probably also lies at the core of why conservatives are often perceived as being more attractive than liberals, as well. Most people find genuineness and authenticity to be attractive traits, in general.

At least most Americans believe that individual liberty is part and parcel of the American Dream, inbred with our conscious genes of the spirit and leaving the deepest imprint on our National Soul. And history cannot be rejected by all. We need a term to identify with its historically divine upbringing.

Although retaining the term classical. Being somewhat liberal myself I personally believe it has much to do with the law of attraction. Many of them believe the same as I that we all have preservative instincts toward values as well as liberal instincts toward values. And the same discovery of friendship and familiarities must also be true about self-avowed conservatives, other than the ones I personally know. Belittling the spiritual sovereignty image, likeness, and potential of themselves and others as well, known by their idiosyncrasies of extreme antipathy and hatred.

It puts them in their proper place. And that can not exclude certain self-avowed conservatives who have the same uncivilized qualities and demeanor. The changes from recognizing our cultured divine qualities to gradually displacing them with ignorance and secularization were for the worse, and not for the better optimal growth and health for a nation conceived and born with sacred guiding principles.

However, one of the brightest rays of hope, shining from enlightened conservatives, liberals, libertarians, moderates or progressives no matter what their mix and brand of ideologies may be can see through the demonization of the uncivilized leftist mentality. Their transforming influences work. For example, it is a term that references the discussion of free will and to what extent there is free will, fate, or divine purpose and intervention and such.

That is a broad and interesting discussion that is not unrelated to political liberalism and instead shares roots with it. It was either Mill or Locke that noted that the use of the same term for both things that is, liberty was unfortunate.

Regardless of what hand they must write with, or what ideology they stand by. God loves us all. Judeo-Christian worldviews easily fleshes itself out as shown in this article? Is it an inaccurate generality to say that liberal mindsets, statistically speaking, lean more towards pluralistic or atheistic moral codes and conservative mindsets lean more towards Judeo-Christian moral codes?

If we can be honest and agree that there is a decent correlation albeit not absolute between these two moral codes and their political implications, one can easily see why conservatives would be united under social expectations, given that conservatives are generally united under the same source of moral code — the Bible. The very concept of atheism suggests that every man adopts for himself whatever is fitting for himself and implies that people are different and can and should live by different systems if desired.

This is precisely why we can observe atheists that are both conservative and liberal politically albeit the vast majority liberal while there are virtually no Christian that would support various liberal positions, such as abortion, for instance, or would at least shamefully and secretly support it for personal benefits because it would go against their own moral code.

This is not suggesting that conservatives live by their moral code any better than liberals live by theirs. Tis not true. This is because the Left owns and operates the media and public squares for the most part.

Liberal ideas dominate the media and the things our children see and hear from day one of their existence and any attempt conservatives have at fighting this is met with strong, condeming resistance. We all grow up hearing and knowing the liberal position. To be conservative in this country nowadays, you have to search for it. Could you imagine how frustrating it would be to have searched for truth, found the albeit unpopular position, and agreed with its premise and interpretation after much research only to find opposition that not only severely misunderstands your lifestyle and values but also wrongly accuses you through conflation of ideas, half-truths and smear campaigns?

Would you want to have anything to do with people that did such things to you? Precisely why the red areas are entirely rural and the blue areas are in the top cities of america…. That would be weird anyway. So the point of my post is that I feel this kind of dialog needs to happen hundreds of thousands of times. At deeper levels of every single point, we all want the same things. Yes there are those who care only about money and power.

Without a doubt this is true. I deserve some of that. And the Bible has no tolerance for laziness. I read an article a couple years ago called A Bitter Pill, why health care costs are crippling America, published in Time magazine.. Something like that anyway. It was a good read. I believe in government health care now. Well honest government healthcare. And certainly if the parties cannot lay things aside and work together to fix this issue. Right now the Dems main focus is to make sure Trump fails.

Like cutting off their nose to spite their face. But come on. Especially since social media has come into power. All we care about is defeating the other party.