The Death Factor

John Judis on the application of some psychological research to trends in American politics:

There is, however, one group of scholars--members of the relatively new field of political psychology--who are trying to explain voter preferences that can't be easily quantified. The best general introduction to this field is Drew Westen's recent book, The Political Brain, but the research that is perhaps most relevant to the 2004 election has been conducted by psychologists Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski. In the early 1980s, they developed what they clumsily called "terror management theory." Their idea was not about how to clear the subways in the event of an attack, but about how people cope with the terrifying and potentially paralyzing realization that, as human beings, we are destined to die. Their experiments showed that the mere thought of one's mortality can trigger a range of emotions--from disdain for other races, religions, and nations, to a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders, to a heightened attraction to traditional mores.

This seems in line with the American Environics data that Garance wrote about a while back which showed a large and rather sudden upsurge in patriarchal sentiments following 9/11. At any rate, I think there's good reason to be a bit skeptical about the current faddish enthusiasm for Drew Westen (remember George Lakoff?), but it certainly is true that thinking about politics does seem unduly reliant on a particular mode of public opinion polling and could benefit from deeper engagement with contemporary psychological research.

Comments

Once upon a time, politics was about issues, and about the leadership which candidates brought toward advancing these issues. Now, it's the Oprah view of politics. Does any one else find it discouraging that this sort of thing has acquired legitimacy?

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by Nick Kasoff | August 20, 2007 12:27 PM

Without meaning to sound too Skube-ish, how about actually reading Westen's book?

Posted by vorkosigan1 | August 20, 2007 12:42 PM

I do think that much of the mindset of the rank and file Bush supporters can be explained as the infantile "Daddy syndrome".

Bush supporters can NOT really function as adults -- they want some big father figure who will protect them so long as they are obedient. At heart , they are cowardly infants with poor reasoning and impulse control.

They don't want to look at the causes of terrorism and the logical methods to reduce it -- they instead will create a police state in order to have a Daddy that will protect them. They don't realize their solution will be far worse than the limited threat.

Similarly, they can't reason -- they need a Rush Limbaugh or a Jerry Falwell to tell them what to think. That way --if they only follow the rules-- then one day God will take them to Heaven or the Republicans will kill all the nasty liberals or --preferably --both.

Depending upon their own intelligence to make decisions is something they go to great lengths to avoid -- with justification.

That's why they are so irrational in discussions. They CAN'T Discuss the Facts -- because the Facts don't show well for Daddy Bush so looking at them would be disobedient and risk one being CAST OUT.

Their fanatical, screaming defense of Bush -- and of the mythical world they carry around in their head -- is as hysterical as a medieval Inquistion burning people at the stake to prevent the growth of heresy. Because the emotion is the same -- cowardly fear and panic based upon an unlying awareness of their stupidity and ignorance.

Asking these people to exercise their duties as citizens in a responsible way is like asking someone with Down's Syndrome to perform brain surgery.

Posted by Don Williams | August 20, 2007 12:45 PM

Is it that academic psychologists are actually unable to use objective phraseology and vocabulary so they don't sound like they're obviously sneering at a conservative mindset? Or do they know their colleagues are so in step with them politically that such biases will sail through peer review?

How, I wonder would anyone react to a supposedly academic paper that concluded with equal bias as follows?

Their experiments showed that lack of thought about one's mortality can trigger a heightened moral relativism, a tendency toward moral equivalence between free and unfree nations and a preference for slick Clintonian triangulation over principled, honest leadership

Posted by Peter | August 20, 2007 12:52 PM

And there in the post above mine you see the consequences: now gullible liberals think academic psychology has validated the latest daft book from George Lakoff - all because psychologists are unable to state their conclusions in some sort of objective way that doesn't assume liberal views to be mentally 'normal' and divergence from them an objectively strange phenomenon to be studied.

Posted by Peter | August 20, 2007 12:56 PM

After all, believing that most of the world's 1 Billion Muslims are "Islamofascists" is not really much of a stretch if you already believe in the Boogie Man. Or Satan as an actual living entity.

And that said Islamofascists came over here to commit suicide because "they hate our freedom" -- well, that's an obvious conclusion.

And that Saddams' nukes are buried out there just waiting for Bin Laden to come pick them up -- well, it practically goes without saying.

Hopefully , Bin Laden won't be able to also find the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail. God probably won't allow that so long as we go to Church and vote Republican.

Posted by Don Williams | August 20, 2007 12:59 PM

Peter, it's not our fault you are not mentally normal.

Posted by Walt | August 20, 2007 1:04 PM

Re Peter's comment "now gullible liberals think academic psychology has validated the latest daft book from George Lakoff "
----------
Actually, I would never think that. In part, because I have never been able to distinguish psychology from organized religion and various interesting con games.

Psychologists do have their own prophet, as I recall. Someone named Freud who muttered various bits of suitably vague and obscure wisdom.

Plus psychologists are far more aggressive in ..er.. taking their cut. No anonymous donations in the collection plate for them.

Posted by Don Williams | August 20, 2007 1:12 PM

showed a large and rather sudden upsurge in patriarchal sentiments following 9/11

On a mostly tangential note, I observed something similar in infants' clothing, of all things: boy #1 was born the summer before 9/11, and it was easy to find cute boys' outfits in pastels, with cute cartoony animals, etc. IOW, stuff that wasn't girly, but was still kinda soft and, y'know babylike, with him being a baby and all. Boy #2 came along in spring 2004, and the selection was much heavier on darker colors, 'action' images like firefighters & police, more realistic/aggressive-seeming animal images, extreme sports, and so on. Since we have our share of academic types in the family, we did attribute this trend to 9/11, but never saw anything really supporting or discussing it.

Posted by latts | August 20, 2007 1:16 PM

Psychologists do have their own prophet, as I recall. Someone named Freud who muttered various bits of suitably vague and obscure wisdom.

Way to reveal your complete ignorance of modern state of the field, Don.

Posted by Tom | August 20, 2007 1:25 PM

The finding about changes in people's views when they're afraid matches a lot of recent psychological and philosophical work which focuses on the role of emotion in all morality, not just traditional or conservative morality. If people have conflict in their moral views (and who doesn't?), then changing the emotions they most strongly feel would naturally change which views tend to win out in those internal conflicts.

Posted by Justin | August 20, 2007 1:53 PM

The problem is not that people investigate the psychology of political preferences, but if they don't even strive for objectivity, then they're doing a disservice to their own work. The other side of the coin that is the finding that thoughts about one's own mortality means a heightened attraction to conventional mores is, by definition, that absence of such thought means a lessened attraction to conventional mores. Stated this way, interesting conclusions can be drawn about the preponderance of the former towards conservatism and the latter towards liberalism. Implicitly assuming that psychologically normal people are liberal by talking only about the former is a disservice to serious research, if that is what these psychologists are conducting.

Posted by Peter | August 20, 2007 2:07 PM

Once upon a time, politics was about issues, and about the leadership...

Oh, feck off. The first American elections were local elites competing against each other by seeing who could buy the voters more whiskey on election day. The word "candidate" comes from the Roman practice by which office-seekers wore expensively bleached robes to look more grandiose. There was no golden age of seriousness.

Posted by Senescent | August 20, 2007 2:14 PM

Peter,

From reading Judis' article, the point that is made is that the amount that people thought about mortality prior to 9/11 was the baseline, or "normal" level. And then, 9/11 brought about a temporary phase in which people thought about these things more often.

That doesn't seem biased to me. Of course, you could argue that the period right after 9/11 was really the normal period, and everything before it was less abnormal in that people were less mortality-focused. Who cares?

I think many people are too quick to put value judgements on liberal vs. conservative ways of looking at the world, rather than just seeing them for what they are. And, lets not be too timid in describing those ways of thinking with everyday language, even though it might sound politically biased to people who are extremely sensitive.

Posted by Jim W | August 20, 2007 2:18 PM

Oops, typo. I meant: "Of course, you could argue that the period right after 9/11 was really the normal period, and everything before it was abnormal in that people were less mortality-focused."

Posted by Jim W | August 20, 2007 2:21 PM

/me pours out a 40 for Lakoff

Posted by Nick | August 20, 2007 3:06 PM

Re Tom's "Way to reveal your complete ignorance of modern state of the field, Don"
---------
I think you will find that those who actually make money in psychology -- the therapists -- still genuflect to Freud.

I'm not up on all the current fads in Psychology. I'm also not very good at Star Trek trivia games.

Posted by Don Williams | August 20, 2007 3:40 PM

think you will find that those who actually make money in psychology -- the therapists -- still genuflect to Freud.

Or Lacan or a handful of others, but in the end, it's generally an approach based on an particular revelation-sourced theory about How People Work.

Posted by Senescent | August 20, 2007 3:55 PM

"I think you will find that those who actually make money in psychology -- the therapists -- still genuflect to Freud."

Freud is often seen today as more of a philosopher of the idea of psychology than an actual psychologists, in part because his readings were rather odd and some of his case studies were made up or actually from his own life and then told as if they happened to someone else.

Posted by Reality Man | August 20, 2007 4:01 PM

"Their experiments showed that the mere thought of one's mortality can trigger a range of emotions--from disdain for other races, religions, and nations, to a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders, to a heightened attraction to traditional mores."

Duh. What have I been saying?

Chimpanzee behavior.

There are two ways animals respond to death - fight or flight. The listed reactions are "flight" reactions. "Fight" reactions entail developing oneself and pursuing an understanding of the universe by science and technology.

Get a clue. Go read "The Immortalist" by Alan Harrington. He explained the effects of the human fear of death thirty years ago.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 20, 2007 10:24 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but what about Lakoff? Has he been discredited somewhere and I haven't heard about it yet?

Posted by Shalom | August 20, 2007 11:07 PM

Lakoff's fine, but people kinda realized "framing" was becoming buzzwordy, so they're trying to let that field lie fallow for a bit.

Posted by Senescent | August 21, 2007 12:09 AM

I think I understand. I do remember that Chait article claiming that the netroots was obsessed with framing a while back. I guess they want to avoid that image.

I only just learned about Lakoff a few weeks ago. Are there other popular/great progressive thinkers I should know about? Besides Al Gore, of course.

Posted by Shalom | August 21, 2007 1:37 AM