It can be puzzling to consider exactly what makes a person say he is a liberal or a conservative.
According to a recent article published in the Daily Nebraskan, two University of Nebraska-Lincoln professors, Kevin Smith and John Hibbing, say the reason may lie in your genes.
The professors published an article in mid-September describing their research on “the relationship between social ideologies and the sympathetic nervous system,” the article says.
In the study, the professors observed participants’ reactions to various visual stimuli generally considered threatening and others generally considered peaceful. Based on the respondents’ level of fear, the professors assigned them as more politically conservative or liberal. Those who reacted stronger to the threatening stimuli presented a politically conservative response, and those who reacted less presented a politically liberal response.
In an article by John Jost, titled, “The End of the End of Ideology,” he explains the connection between reactions, personality and political ideologies as they may be recognized in young children:
Preschool children who were described by their teachers as energetic, emotionally expressive, gregarious, self-reliant, resilient and impulsive were more likely to identify themselves as liberal as adults. Children who were seen by teachers as relatively inhibited, indecisive, fearful, rigid, vulnerable and over controlled were more likely to identify themselves as conservative adults.
In another article Hibbing contributed to, published in American Science Review in May 2005, the researchers examined data collected in a twins study in Virginia, which provided information on identical as well as fraternal twins. Through the information provided, they determined that:
Genetics matter more than paternally created environment in influencing social attitudes and behaviors, personality traits and intelligence.
The researchers allow for deviation from genetic predisposition by acknowledging the power of free will and an ability to adapt their ideals to fit their security needs. But overall, the articles all seem to contest that people are predisposed based on their genetic makeup to react in certain ways. So, if you’re predisposed to often focus on security issues, then you’ll most likely vote for McCain this year. And if you’re predisposed to focus on following impulses, you’ll most likely vote for Obama.
It is tempting to counter that social influences start affecting people the moment they’re born, so there is no way to tell whether nature or nurture takes the upper hand in determining one’s political identity. However, in the May 2005 article Hibbing participated in, the twin studies show results from twins not only raised in the same house, but also results of twins raised separately by different sets of parents. And regardless of the family situation in which the twins grew up, their political ideologies as adults remained quite similar.
So does this research give voters even less reason to study the candidates? It seems that these results would suggest so long as voters recognize which candidate is more concerned with national security issues, the voters inherently know for whom they will vote.
