Political orientation: Biology or Choice?

              In his Washington Post article, Why Biology Belongs in the Study of Politics, John Hibbins argues that biology is a key factor in molding people’s political viewpoints.  He found substantial evidence claiming that people’s political positions are consistent over time and therefore became more interested in this idea called “genopolitics.”  “Genopolitics” refers to the study of genes and politics.  Hibbins claims that early development, environmental experiences, and genetics all interact to form an individual’s biological predispositions.  Political ideologies are biologically based; they shape decisions about leaders to which individuals are attached.  Although Hibbins has not conducted any research in this field himself, he uses previous research on biology to support his claim.  Evidence suggests that people who believe that homosexuality is based in biology are more tolerant of homosexuality than those who believe that homosexuality is a choice.  Therefore, Hibbins encourages further research in the field of politics and biology; he claims it will create more tolerance if it becomes known that political ideologies are largely biological.        

                The field of political neuroscience is up and rising with researchers such as, John T. Jost and David M. Amodio, taking a stand to understand political ideologies from a biological point of view.  In their research article, Political Ideologies as Motivated Social Cognition: Behavioral and Neuroscientific Evidence, they illustrate how political ideologies may be deeply rooted in biology, just as Hibbins suggests.  They define religious and political ideologies as providing certainty, security, and solidarity for individuals.  As they focus primarily on conservative versus liberal political views, they also recognize that there are two scales on which liberalism and conservatism differ: advocating vs. resisting social change and accepting vs. rejecting social change.  They found that, on average, individual preferences toward either view come from psychological positions on uncertainty, threat, and conformity.
              Jost et. al (2003) conducted a meta-analysis on 88 different studies.  They found that management of threat and uncertainty were consistent predictors of political orientation.  Political conservatism was positively associated with death anxiety, fear of threat and loss, intolerance of ambiguity, and personal needs for structure and order.  Conversely, political liberalism was positively correlated with openness to new experiences and tolerance of uncertainty along with preferences for social change and equality. 

Among the numerous studies in support for the psychological properties of political preferences, there was a longitudinal study conducted on college students.  Perceptions of intergroup threat and anxiety were positively correlated with support for the status quo and group-based hierarchies and eventually political conservatism.  Another study on survivors of the 9/11 attacks suggested that regardless of previous voting patterns, three times as many survivors reported becoming more politically conservative 18 months following the attack.  Simply reminding participants of terrorism and other threats increased their approval for conservative political leaders.  It was suggested that increasing levels of uncertainty and threat caused them to take on more conservative views.    

In order to see how brain activity is affected by politically charged responses, Zamboni et. al (2009) used fMRI to measure brain activity while participants read politically inclined terms.  They varied in liberal vs. conservative content, moderate vs. radical extremity, and relation to individual vs. society. The only significant finding was that of activity in the dlPFC when participants read conservative statements.  This region of the brain is associated “withdrawal motivation, negative affect, and response inhibition” (Jost, 2011). 

What can we take away from all of this?  According to the research above, political orientation is clearly more biological than we thought.  In fact, many people do not think of politics as having any association with biology.  However, maybe now we will have a better understanding of ourselves – why we are more conservative or liberal – as well as a better understanding of those who stand on the opposite side of the court. 

Sources:

Hibbing, John. "Why Biology Belongs in the Study of Politics." The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 9 Dec. 2013.

Jost, John T., and David M. Amodio. "Political Ideology as Motivated Social Cognition: Behavioral and Neuroscientific Evidence." (2011): n. pag. Springer Science+Business Media, 13 Nov. 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2013.

Wendell, Dane. Neuroscience Seminar. Loyola University Chicago, Chicago. 29 Oct. 2013. Lecture.