Conservatives are line-toeing conformists, liberals are envelope-pushing rebels. Or so you thought.
A recent study published by Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is challenging the widely-held belief that conservatives are more obedient than liberals. True, past studies have indicated that conservatives value obedience more than liberals, but according to the study’s researchers, that’s because a GOP-sized elephant in the room has been confounding the data: when subjects are asked questions about authority in general, they often think of conservative authority figures, like military officers or religious leaders.
To eliminate this confounding variable, the researchers tested how subjects related to different kinds of authority figures — conservative (religious and military figures), liberal (environmentalists and civil rights activists), and ideologically neutral (office managers and janitors). The researchers found that just as conservatives were in favor of obeying conservative authority figures, liberals were in favor of obeying liberal authority figures. Also, liberals and conservatives were equally in favor of obeying ideologically neutral authority figures.
The researchers concluded that obedience is “not ideologically divisive” and that “both liberals and conservatives call for rebellion when the authorities are from the ‘other team.’ ”
However, when it comes to matters of consensus and shared beliefs, liberals and conservatives are divided, according to a second study released by the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. In the study, subjects were asked to make judgments about targets’ birthday months and food preferences. Conservatives were consistently more likely than liberals to perceive a consensus, even where none existed.
These findings may have broader political implications, the researchers suggest. For example, the fact that conservatives have a “stronger perception of consensus” could enable them to “rally their base” more effectively, “whereas liberals’ weaker perceptions of consensus could undermine the development of a truly cohesive movement.” Case in point: “the conservative Tea Party movement crafted a highly unified set of goals early in its development and successfully formed a congressional caucus, whereas the progressive Occupy Wall Street movement resisted establishing a specific set of shared goals and, so far, has been largely unable to effect substantial change in American politics.”
However, the tendency to perceive consensus where none exists can also lead conservatives to overestimate their likelihood of success or that others will vote as they vote. For example, many conservatives expressed “shock and disbelief” when President Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to underestimate levels of consensus, but this may galvanize them to take active, necessary measures to achieve a consensus. Case in point: in 2011, liberals in the House of Representatives were concerned that they didn’t have enough support to repeal “Don’t Ask, don’t tell,” so they “worked extremely hard to broker consensus” and “the policy was repealed seamlessly.”
A lesson conservatives should learn before the midterm elections, perhaps?
