Oh you silly Republican National Committee and campaign strategists. Don’t you read your neuroscience literature? If you did, you would know that the politics of fear, while working pretty well on conservatives, is bound to fall flat on undecided voters.
Two recent papers (here and here) point out, not surprisingly, conservatives have neurological soft spots making them easily physiologically responsive to threats — almost like a post traumatic stress disorder as manifested in political leanings. To brush everyone with the same neurological brush, these folks all have neurological soft spots that make them jumpy and jittery and threatened and easily angered. Fear-avoidance is a pretty big motivator.
So, not surprisingly, conservatives respond well to the politics of fear (defining “conservative” as those who identify with the Republican base in social and government policy). The McCain campaign has these folks in the bag.
Undecideds by definition are open: they are less inclined to be knee-jerk fearful of change. And so, dear RNC, a blazingly obvious tautology: being an “undecided” is a proxy for “having neurological firmness” and “not terribly susceptible to fear as a persuasive technique.”
So, the “politics of fear” is backfiring, and, unless the “undecideds” are secretly “conservatives” but don’t want to admit that out loud, probably Sen. McCain should tone down the fear, and dial up the “here’s my plan.”
Abstracts and popular press and blog posts on the “politics of fear” after the jump:
Andy Martens, Jeff Greenberg and John J. B. Allen, “Self-Esteem and Autonomic Physiology: Parallels Between Self-Esteem and Cardiac Vagal Tone as Buffers of Threat,” Pers Soc Psychol Rev 12: 370 (November 2008) DOI: 10.1177/1088868308323224
In this article a potential physiological connection to self-esteem is suggested: cardiac vagal tone, the degree of influence on the heart by the vagus, a primary nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system. This hypothesis emerges from parallels between the two literatures that suggest both self-esteem and cardiac vagal tone function to provide protection from threat responding. This article reviews these literatures and evidence and preliminary findings that suggest in some contexts self-esteem and cardiac vagal tone may exert an influence on each other. Last, the article discusses theoretical and applied health implications of this potential physiological connection to self-esteem.
Douglas R. Oxley,Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford, Matthew V. Hibbing,Jennifer L. Miller,1 Mario Scalora, Peter K. Hatemi, John R. Hibbing,”Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits,” Science 3231: 1667-1670 (19 September 2008) DOI: 0.1126/science.1157627
Although political views have been thought to arise largely from individuals’ experiences, recent research suggests that they may have a biological basis. We present evidence that variations in political attitudes correlate with physiological traits. In a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War. Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm-violator) threats.
“The Roots of Fear, The evolutionary primacy of the brain’s fear circuitry makes it more powerful than reasoning circuits,” By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK (From the magazine issue dated Dec 24, 2007, visitd 10.20.08)
Think Progress, “Kristol: I Recommend The Politics of Fear,” By on Feb 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Global Comment, “Fight-or-Flight: the American Electorate and the Politics of Fear,” 10.16.08
This supports a gut assumption after these last eight years.
However, since conservatism and authoritarianism wax and wane in societies, is there a neurological explanation for the waves? Stenner posed the same question to those believing in the ‘authoritarian personality’: if a personality is a stable trait, how does society go through periods of increased and decreased authoritarianism?
GDA, Good question. There may be a biological basis in individuals (the ventromedial prefrontal lesion studies are interesting), and behaviorally, the demonstration of “shame” seems to correlate with the wax and wane.
My method is to first parse out the behavior in bite size chunks, and then figure out what biology might go along with that.
First, let me check my right hand desk drawer copy of “The Authoritarian Personality,Part 1″ TW Adorno et al. 1950 (The American Jewish Committee) at page 598 (the “*” indicates italics from the original):
. . . “The difference between achievement values based on inner authority (internalized conscience), and conventional values based based on external authority (and thus replaceable when the authority changes), results also in a difference in reaction to value violations. This is the difference between *guilt* and *shame*.. . ”
“Shame” is one side of the coin. “Conservatism” or “authoritarianism” is based on ever-replaceable external authority. When that authority screws up, the feeling is “shame” (not “guilt”), and authoritarians retreat in search of a new source of external authority.
Are there neurological reason for “shame” as opposed to guilt? Perhaps if it’s the absence of compassion. Here’s an interesting footnote from a neuroscience paper describing people who have brain lesions in the ventromedial prefrontal brain area:
* * *
“b For example, one of the target patients (patient 2) is accompanied to her hospital visits by her nearly 90-year-old mother. In a recent visit to our neurology clinic, the mother was slow to find that patient’s appointment slip during their arrival. Patient 2 reacted by screaming violently at her mother in the patient waiting area. Other patients have similar tantrum-like responses to relatively minor provocation. Examples of triggers for similar outbursts of anger include political disagreements with friends (Patient 3), a spouse’s suggestion to use headlights while driving (Patient 1), and a mother’s recommendation to change a clothing combination (Patient 4). The key feature of the target patients’ angry responses towards others is that they are not commensurate with the provocation”
* * *
Koenigs, M. and D. Tranel, “Irrational Economic Decision-Making after Ventromedial Prefrontal Damage: Evidence from the Ultimatum Game,” The Journal of Neuroscience 27:951-956 (2007) doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4606-06.2007
(the whole post is: http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/wordpress/2007/09/11/pride/)
Whether people change epigenetically in response to societal change I think is up in the air. http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/wordpress/2008/09/03/s/ .
Good question, GDA — this is just my guess, maybe others have a better answer. Points to a repeat of the 1994 Congress for 2010.