By Matthew Hutson
Tuesday, May 09, 2017
In March, students at Middlebury College disrupted a
lecture by the conservative political scientist Charles Murray because they
disagreed with some of his writings. Last month, the University of California,
Berkeley, canceled a lecture by the conservative commentator Ann Coulter due to
concerns for her safety—just two months after uninviting the conservative
writer Milo Yiannopoulos due to violent protests. Media outlets on the right
have played up the incidents as evidence of rising close-mindedness on the
left.
For years, it’s conservatives who have been branded as
intolerant, often for good reason. But conservatives will tell you that
liberals demonstrate their own intolerance, using the strictures of political
correctness as a weapon of oppression. That became a familiar theme during the
2016 campaign. After the election, Sean McElwee, a policy analyst at the
progressive group Demos Action, reported that Donald Trump had received his
strongest support among Americans who felt that whites and Christians faced “a
great deal” of discrimination. Spencer Greenberg, a mathematician who runs a
website for improving decision-making, found that the biggest predictor of
voting for Trump after party affiliation was the rejection of political
correctness—Trump’s voters felt silenced.
So who’s right? Are conservatives more prejudiced than
liberals, or vice versa? Research over the years has shown that in
industrialized nations, social conservatives and religious fundamentalists
possess psychological traits, such as the valuing of conformity and the desire
for certainty, that tend to predispose people toward prejudice. Meanwhile,
liberals and the nonreligious tend to be more open to new experiences, a trait
associated with lower prejudice. So one might expect that, whatever each
group’s own ideology, conservatives and Christians should be inherently more
discriminatory on the whole.
But more recent psychological research, some of it
presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and
Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that it’s not so simple. These findings confirm
that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each
prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is
about equally prejudiced. While liberals
might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more
tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.
Political understanding might finally stand a chance if
we could first put aside the argument over who has that bigger problem. The
truth is that we all do.
***
When Mark Brandt, an American-trained psychologist now at
Tilburg University in the Netherlands, first entered graduate school, he
wondered why members of groups that espouse tolerance are so often intolerant.
“I realized that there was a potential contradiction in the literature,” he
told me. “On the one hand, liberals have a variety of personality traits and
moral values that should protect them from expressing prejudice. On the other
hand, people tend to express prejudice against people who do not share their
values.” So, if you value open-mindedness, as liberals claim to do, and you see
another group as prejudiced, might their perceived prejudice actually increase
your prejudice against them?
Brandt approached this question with Geoffrey Wetherell
and Christine Reyna in a 2013 paper
published in Social Psychological and
Personality Science. They asked a variety of Americans about their
political ideologies; how much they valued traditionalism, egalitarianism and
self-reliance; and their feelings toward eight groups of people, four of them
liberal (feminists, atheists, leftist protesters and pro-choice people) and
four of them conservative (supporters of the traditional family, religious
fundamentalists, Tea Party protesters and pro-life people). Participants
reported how much each group violated their “core values and beliefs,” and they
assessed how much they supported discrimination toward that group, by rating
their agreement with statements such as “Feminists should not be allowed to
make a speech in this city” and “Prolife people deserve any harassment they
receive.”
As predicted, conservatives were more discriminatory than
liberals toward liberal groups, and liberals were more discriminatory than
conservatives toward conservative groups. Conservatives’ discrimination was
driven by their higher traditionalism and by liberal groups’ apparent violation
of their values. Liberals’ discrimination was driven by their lower
traditionalism and by conservative groups’ apparent violation of their values. Complicating matters,
conservatives highly valued self-reliance, which weakened their discrimination
toward liberal groups, perhaps because self-reliance is associated with the
freedom to believe or do what one wants. And liberals highly valued
universalism, which weakened their discrimination toward conservative groups,
likely because universalism espouses acceptance of all.
But these differences didn’t affect the larger picture:
Liberals were as discriminatory toward conservative groups as conservatives
were toward liberal groups. And Brandt’s findings have been echoed elsewhere:
Independently and concurrently, the labs of John Chambers at St. Louis
University and Jarret Crawford at The College of New Jersey have also found
approximately equal prejudice among conservatives and liberals.
Newer research has rounded out the picture of two warring
tribes with little tolerance toward one another. Not only are conservatives
unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than liberals, but religious
fundamentalists are to some degree unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than
atheists, according to a paper
Brandt and Daryl Van Tongeren published in January in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. To be sure, they
found that people high in religious fundamentalism were more cold and
dehumanizing toward people low in perceived fundamentalism (atheists, gay men
and lesbians, liberals and feminists) than people low in fundamentalism were
toward those high in perceived fundamentalism (Catholics, the Tea Party,
conservatives and Christians). But this prejudice gap existed only if the
strength of the perceiver’s religious belief was also very high. Otherwise,
each end of the fundamentalist spectrum looked equally askance at each other.
And while liberals and the nonreligious sometimes defend themselves as being
intolerant of intolerance, they can’t claim this line as their own. In the
study, bias on both ends was largely driven by seeing the opposing groups as
limiting one’s personal freedom.
Other researchers have come forward with similar
findings. Filip Uzarevic, from the Catholic University of Louvain, in Beligium,
has reported preliminary data showing that Christians were more biased against
Chinese, Muslims and Buddhists than were atheists and agnostics, but they were
less biased than atheists and agnostics against Catholics, anti-gay activists
and religious fundamentalists (with atheists expressing colder feelings than
agnostics). So, again, the religious and nonreligious have their own particular
targets of prejudice. Perhaps more surprising, atheists and agnostics were less
open to alternative opinions than Christians, and they reported more
existential certainty. Uzarevic suggested to me after the SPSP conference that
these results might be specific to the study’s location, Western Europe, which
is highly secularized and where the nonreligious, unlike Christians, “do not
have so many opportunities and motivations to integrate ideas challenging their
own.”
If liberalism and secularism don’t mute prejudice, you
can guess what Brandt found about intelligence. In a study
published last year in Social
Psychological and Personality Science, he confirmed earlier findings
linking low intelligence to prejudice, but showed it was only against
particular groups. Low cognitive ability (as measured by a vocabulary test)
correlated with bias against Hispanics, Asian Americans, atheists, gay men and
lesbians, blacks, Muslims, illegal immigrants, liberals, whites, people on welfare
and feminists. High cognitive ability correlated with bias against Christian
fundamentalists, big business, Christians (in general), the Tea Party, the
military, conservatives, Catholics, working-class people, rich people and
middle-class people. But raw brainpower itself doesn’t seem to be the deciding
factor in who we hate: When Brandt controlled for participants’ demographics
and traditionalism (smart people were more supportive of “newer lifestyles” and
less supportive of “traditional family ties”), intelligence didn’t correlate
with overall levels of prejudice.
***
So what’s at the root of our equal-opportunity prejudice?
Conservatives are prejudiced against feminists and other left-aligned groups
and liberals are prejudiced against fundamentalists and other right-aligned
groups, but is it really for political reasons? Or is there something about
specific social groups beyond their
assumed political ideologies that leads liberals and conservatives to dislike
them? Feminists and fundamentalists differ on many dimensions beyond pure
politics: geography, demographics, social status, taste in music.
In a paper
forthcoming in Psychological Science,
Brandt sought to answer those questions by building prediction models to
estimate not only whether someone’s political views would increase positive or
negative feelings about a target group, but also precisely how much, and which
aspects of the group affected those feelings the most.
First, Brandt used surveys of Americans to assess the
perceived traits of 42 social groups, including Democrats, Catholics, gays and
lesbians and hipsters. How conservative, conventional and high-status were
typical members of these groups? And how much choice did they have over their
group membership? (Some things are seen as more genetic than others—Lady Gaga’s
anthem “Born This Way” was adopted by homosexuals, not hipsters.) Then he
looked at data from a national election survey that asked people their
political orientation and how warm or cold their feelings were toward those 42
groups.
Conservative political views were correlated with
coldness toward liberals, gays and lesbians, transgender people, feminists,
atheists, people on welfare, illegal immigrants, blacks, scientists, Hispanics,
labor unions, Buddhists, Muslims, hippies, hipsters, Democrats, goths,
immigrants, lower-class people and nerds. Liberal political views, on the other
hand, were correlated with coldness toward conservatives, Christian
fundamentalists, rich people, the Tea Party, big business, Christians, Mormons,
the military, Catholics, the police, men, whites, Republicans, religious
people, Christians and upper-class people.
Brandt found that knowing only a target group’s perceived political orientation (are goths
seen as liberal or conservative?), you can predict fairly accurately whether
liberals or conservatives will express more prejudice toward them, and how
much. Social status (is the group respected by society?) and choice of group
membership (were they born that way?) mattered little. It appears that
conflicting political values really are what drive liberal and conservative
prejudice toward these groups. Feminists and fundamentalists differ in many
ways, but, as far as political prejudice is concerned, only one way really
matters.
In another recent paper, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Crawford, Brandt and colleagues also found that people were especially biased
against those who held opposing social, versus economic, political
ideologies—perhaps because cultural issues seem more visceral than those that
involve spreadsheets.
None of this, of course, explains why liberals’ open-mindedness
doesn’t better protect them against prejudice. One theory is that the effects
of liberals’ unique traits and worldviews on prejudice are swamped by a simple
fact of humanity: We like people similar to us. There’s a long line of research
showing that we prefer members of our own group, even if the group is defined
merely by randomly assigned shirt color, as one 2011 study found. Social
identity is strong—stronger than any inclination to seek or suppress novelty.
As Brandt told me, “The openness-related traits of liberals are not some sort
of prejudice antidote.”
Brandt further speculates that one’s tendency to be open-
or closed-minded affects one’s treatment of various groups mostly by acting as
a group definition in itself—are you an Open or a Closed? Supporting this idea,
he and collaborators reported
in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology in 2015 that, although openness to new experiences correlated
with lower prejudice against a wide collection of 16 social groups, it actually
increased prejudice against the most
closed-minded groups in the bunch. Open-minded people felt colder than
closed-minded people toward “conventional” groups such as evangelical
Christians, Republicans and supporters of the traditional family. And, unsurprisingly,
closed-minded people were more biased than open-minded people against
“unconventional” groups such as atheists, Democrats, poor people, and gays and
lesbians. Research consistently shows that liberals are more open than
conservatives, but in many cases what matters is: Open to what?
***
Knowing all this, can we change tolerance levels? You
might think that the mind-expanding enterprise of education would reduce
prejudice. But according to another presentation at the SPSP meeting, it does
not. It does, however, teach people to cover it up. Maxine Najle, a researcher
at the University of Kentucky, asked people if they would consider voting for a
presidential candidate who was atheist, black, Catholic, gay, Muslim or a
woman. When asked directly, participants with an education beyond high school
reported a greater willingness to vote for these groups than did less-educated
participants. But when asked in a more indirect way, with more anonymity, the
two groups showed equal prejudice. “So higher education seems to instill an
understanding of the appropriate levels of intolerance to express,” Najle told
me, “not necessarily higher tolerance.”
Education’s suppression of expressed prejudice suggests a
culture of political correctness in which people don’t feel comfortable sharing
their true feelings for fear of reprisal—just the kind of intolerance
conservatives complain about. And yet, as a society, we’ve agreed that certain
kinds of speech, such as threats and hate speech, are to be scorned. There’s an
argument to be made that conservative intolerance does more harm than liberal
intolerance, as it targets more vulnerable people. Consider the earlier list of
groups maligned by liberals and conservatives. Rich people, Christians, men,
whites and the police would generally seem to have more power today than
immigrants, gays, blacks, poor people and goths. According to Brandt, “We’ve
understandably received a variety of pushback when we suggest that prejudice
towards Christians and conservatives is prejudice.” To many it’s just standing
up to bullies.
Conservatives, however, don’t view it that way.
“Nowadays, as the right sees it, the left has won the culture war and controls
the media, the universities, Hollywood and the education of everyone’s
children,” says Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at New York University who
studies politics and morality. “Many of them think that they are the victims,
they are fighting back against powerful and oppressive forces, and their
animosities are related to that worldview.”
Robbie Sutton, a psychologist at the University of Kent
in England, presented preliminary findings at SPSP that touch on the issue of
which intolerance is more justifiable. He found that people who endorsed
denialist conspiracy theories about climate change (e.g., “‘Climate change’ is
a myth promoted by the government as an excuse to raise taxes and curb people’s
freedom”) were more likely than those who endorsed warmist conspiracy theories
(e.g., “Politicians and industry lobbyists are pressuring scientists to
downplay the dangers of climate change”) to want to censor, surveil and punish
climate scientists, whereas warmists were more likely than denialists to want
to punish and surveil climate change skeptics. But are these sentiments equally
harmful? Many people would say that’s a subjective question, but it’s hard to
ignore the evidence, for instance, that Exxon has hidden its knowledge of
climate change for years, and the fact that that the current Republican
administration has placed new restrictions on Environmental Protection Agency
scientists. Who is more vulnerable, and backed by scientific evidence: Exxon or
environmental researchers?
Regardless of who has the more toxic intolerance, the
fact remains that people have trouble getting along. What to do? “One of the
most consistent ways to increase tolerance is contact with the other side and
sharing the experience of working toward a goal,” Brandt says. He suggests
starting with the person next door. “Everyone benefits from safe neighborhoods,
a stimulating cultural environment and reliable snow removal,” he says. “If
liberal and conservative neighbors can find ways to work together on the local
level to improve their neighborhoods and communities, it might help to increase
tolerance in other domains.” (If you can find a neighbor of the opposite party,
that is.)
Progressives might see the conservatives trailing history
as being on its wrong side, but conservatives might feel the same way about the
progressives way ahead of the train. Getting everyone onboard simultaneously
could well be impossible, but if we share a common vision, even partially,
maybe we can at least stay on the tracks.
No comments:
Post a Comment