Red Shift or Worldview Defense?
In the years since 9/11, a debate has emerged between some prominent social psychologists--most notably between John Jost and Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, and Sheldon Solomon. An article touching upon this debate was in last month's issue of Psychology Today (a magazine I don't normally read, but was handed a copy of this article because of its relevance to me).
The Ideological Animal
...
University of Arizona psychologist Jeff Greenberg argues that some ideological shifts can be explained by terror management theory (TMT), which holds that heightened fear of death motivates people to defend their world views. TMT predicts that images like the destruction of the World Trade Center should make liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative. "In the United States, political conservatism does seem to be the preferred ideology when people are feeling insecure," concedes Greenberg. "But in China or another communist country, reminding people of their own mortality would lead them to cling more tightly to communism."
Jost believes it's more complex. After all, Cinnamon Stillwell and others in the 911 Neocons didn't become more liberal. Like so many other Democrats after 9/11, they made a hard right turn. The reason thoughts of death make people more conservative, Jost says, is that they awaken a deep desire to see the world as fair and just, to believe that people get what they deserve, and to accept the existing social order as valid, rather than in need of change. When these natural desires are primed by thoughts of death and a barrage of mortal fear, people gravitate toward conservatism because it's more certain about the answers it provides-right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, us vs. them-and because conservative leaders are more likely to advocate a return to traditional values, allowing people to stick with what's familiar and known. "Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism," explains Jost. "It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat."
...
The full article is located here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-000001&page=1
Where do you fall in this debate? When threatened, do people become more conservative, as Jost says? Or do people simply cling more strongly to their culture and their worldviews? This article seems clear in its bias, but the peer-reviewed research is appropriately more dubious and skeptical.
The Ideological Animal
...
University of Arizona psychologist Jeff Greenberg argues that some ideological shifts can be explained by terror management theory (TMT), which holds that heightened fear of death motivates people to defend their world views. TMT predicts that images like the destruction of the World Trade Center should make liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative. "In the United States, political conservatism does seem to be the preferred ideology when people are feeling insecure," concedes Greenberg. "But in China or another communist country, reminding people of their own mortality would lead them to cling more tightly to communism."
Jost believes it's more complex. After all, Cinnamon Stillwell and others in the 911 Neocons didn't become more liberal. Like so many other Democrats after 9/11, they made a hard right turn. The reason thoughts of death make people more conservative, Jost says, is that they awaken a deep desire to see the world as fair and just, to believe that people get what they deserve, and to accept the existing social order as valid, rather than in need of change. When these natural desires are primed by thoughts of death and a barrage of mortal fear, people gravitate toward conservatism because it's more certain about the answers it provides-right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, us vs. them-and because conservative leaders are more likely to advocate a return to traditional values, allowing people to stick with what's familiar and known. "Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism," explains Jost. "It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat."
...
The full article is located here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-000001&page=1
Where do you fall in this debate? When threatened, do people become more conservative, as Jost says? Or do people simply cling more strongly to their culture and their worldviews? This article seems clear in its bias, but the peer-reviewed research is appropriately more dubious and skeptical.