Gone are the days of disagreeing solely on the logic of policy decisions; in today’s era of extreme political polarization, people seem to experience different political realities altogether. Political outlook is commonly assumed a product of socialization—that is, the belief of one’s friends and family inform one’s own belief—and of conscious choices—that is, one makes rational decisions in accordance with one’s values. Yet these two factors may be only part of the story. There is a growing body of research that suggests that one’s political outlook—whether one is conservative or liberal—depends partly on one’s genes. In other words, one’s propensity to a certain political leaning may be influenced by hereditary factors. To see political outlook as an outgrowth of physiological factors can contribute to understanding the nature of political polarization.
Numerous studies, armed with cutting edge technology, have observed that hereditary biological traits can influence on political outlook. Liberal and conservative outlooks broadly refer to how open one is to political change and how much one views structure and authority. Conservatives are generally more opposed to change than liberals, and they value structure and authority more than liberals. To be clear, political outlook in this sense does not refer to one’s identification as a Republican or a Democrat (although there are, of course, correlations between one’s political outlook and one’s identification with a party), nor to any particular specific policy views.
Research by Brown professor Rose McDermott reveals that as much as 40 percent of the difference between people’s political outlooks—defined in broad terms of openness to change and reverence for authority—can be attributed to genes. This does not mean that genetics determine 40 percent of a person’s political outlook. Rather, it refers to the statistical relationship between the genetics and the political outlooks of wide populations. This correlation can be explained by the different ways people tend to react to perceived threats—people who are genetically predisposed to be more fearful are also more likely to be conservative. Thus, biologically rooted behavioral responses to perceived threats explain the correlation between genes and political outlook.
Researchers have conducted studies with brain scans whereby they predicted subjects’ political ideology with extreme accuracy. A study by Darren Schreiber revealed that when playing risk-taking games, different parts of the brain lit up for Republicans and Democrats. Republicans showed more brain activation in the right amygdala, which is associated with fear, whereas Democrats showed more activation in the left posterior insula, which is associated with intrapersonal and introspective awareness. Because of these brain activation patterns, the researchers could predict their subjects’ political outlook with 82.9% accuracy. Brain scans had more predictive power for political ideology even than the political ideology of subjects’ parents did, which were only 69.5% accurate. This is shocking, because examining the political ideology of one’s family had long been considered the gold standard for predicting the opinions of an individual.
Furthermore, several studies found that, when subjects were shown threatening images, their sympathetic nervous systems (SNS) activated in accordance with their political outlook. The SNS system, measured by electrodes attached to the skin to detect sweat, is commonly known as the “flight or fight” system. The study found that subjects with conservative views on social policies—death penalty, immigration, foreign aid, and gun control—revealed greater SNS activation. By contrast, those with more liberal views revealed little to no SNS activation. In other words, liberals’ flight or fight response systems did not activate as frequently as conservatives’ when they view threatening images. Yet liberals still demonstrated an acute awareness of the threats: When asked, they could explain what was threatening about the images. They, however, did not experience the same somatic symptoms (increased sweat and heartbeat) that conservatives did. This study suggests that people have different physiological responses to the same images, depending on their reactions to threats—and by extension, on their political outlook.
Biology, moreover, can explain discrepancies in how people perceive visual and auditory stimuli. Some studies suggest that people see different things when looking at the same image, depending on their political outlook. When shown the same picture (for example, a spider on a person’s face), eye scans show that conservatives look more at the spider and that liberals look at the person’s eye. This is likely because conservatives are more attentive to perceived threats and react more strongly to them, whereas liberals tend to search for information regarding a person’s emotional state. These trends reveal that liberals and conservatives are actually processing the same information differently.
These heritable genetic differences become more pronounced over generations, since liberals tend to marry liberals, and conservatives tend to marry conservatives. There are biological ramifications for this—people with similar political ideologies tend to be more attracted to each other’s smell, without previously knowing the other’s political ideology. Therefore, because people tend to produce offspring with those who hold similar political outlooks, particular biological traits are reinforced and passed down through generations.
Thus, there is growing research that political ideologies not only are logical or socially informed, but also are partly rooted in biology. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that genetics do not pre-determine one’s behavior; on the contrary, they interact with one’s environment in complicated ways, and they are malleable to one’s circumstance and to one’s conscious choices. According to Professor Rose McDermott, humans are the only species that can overcome its own evolutionary history through conscious and social processes. That means that genetic predisposition is just that—a predisposition. It certainly does not determine person’s political views. Moreover, people cannot justify unsavory policy, sexism, or racism on basis of “biology”—people must always be held accountable for their beliefs.
Nevertheless, to view political differences as outgrowths of psychological states may actually contribute to the conversation on political polarization. A new biological theory of politics can help people understand that they are in fact perceiving the same events differently. Perhaps it can spur people to make better efforts to understand the various worldviews that others hold, or at least not to be so quick to write them off as irrational or deluded. A counterargument to this suggestion is that understanding the biology of politics may in fact dissuade people from looking for a common ground—viewing their political differences as insurmountable—which might strengthen political echo chambers. It is therefore important to view political outlook as a complex and multifaceted story involving socialization, conscious choice and biology. Biology is not the whole story, but it seems to be a part of it.
Photo: “Anatomy Biology Eye”