The UK is a worrying place to live at the moment, with soothsayers preaching about economic, social and environmental collapse at every street corner (or posting about it on Facebook, at least). This makes it a perfect time to post a few stories about factors leading to political persuasion! In science we trust.
Research by various political scientists has suggested that around half of the variation in political preference is heritable (that is, determined by our genetic makeup). In this post, I’ll be talking about non-heritable (that is, social and lifestyle) factors that affect political persuasion.
Birth order
It may well affect political persuasion. There have been various studies suggesting the impact of birth order, including one in which parents’ social persuasion was not linked. Though it is difficult to ascertain why, it has been suggested that this is due to the “dominance hierarchy in the sibling relationship”. It is suggested that being the first born fosters a sense of privilege that leads the offspring to swing towards favouring the “political status quo”.
Siblings and stereotypes
Men raised with sisters tended to be more conservative according to a recent study. This has been proposed to be related to the attitudes related to gender roles instilled from a young age. Boys with sisters will see their sisters encouraged to engage in household chores and more “girly” pastimes (toys are still very gender segregated to this present day, though attitudes seem to be changing gradually). This early gender stereotyping may translate into more stereotyped roles, again maintaining the status quo, in later life.
Conversely, growing up with a sister had no effect on young girls. In addition, the study has suggested that the effect decreases as the young men grow up. Unfortunately (though not related to this story), the data did show the persistence of gender stereotypes for longer.
Personality profiling
A study has suggested that political persuasion can be predicted as a function of 5 personality traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion and Agreeableness.
Openness and Conscientiousness were found to be the best predictors, with more of the former correlating to conservatism and more of the latter correlating with more liberal attitudes. The other traits varied more, though Emotional Stability and Extraversion had moderate links to social conservatism but more effect on economic persuasion. Agreeableness, conversely, was related to social conservatism by economic liberalism.
These data in particular suggested that politicians with certain values could have predictable views on an array of policy domains, which is supported by the relative cohesion within a political party relative to beyond.
Oxytocin: the “moral molecule”?
Oxytocin plays a role in social interaction, particularly during sexual reproduction and during and after childbirth. It has been shown to be related to the formation of monogamous pair bonds in humans and other species.
Research undertaken in the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies (CNS) in the US investigated the role of oxytocin in political persuasion. Synthetic oxytocin (or placebo) was administered to volunteers (not females due to its affect on the menstrual cycle) and they were asked about their feelings towards various political figures.
Those of a Democratic persuasion showed more warmth towards their opponents with than without oxytocin, whilst it had no effect on Republicans. This data suggested that those who lean more to the left are less fixed in their views and are more affected by their emotional response.
Voting participation and stress
Though not related to political persuasion, another hormone may have an affect on voter turnout.
A small study explored how cortisol (often dubbed “the stress hormone”) may have an effect on voting activity. Lower cortisol levels in the afternoon were associated with increased voting frequency, but not with non-voting political activity (such as campaining). Baseline cortisol levels predicted behaviour that was not affected by demographics.
Cortisol is a hormone that can also predict participating in social interactions. The paper’s authors note that, as political activity is a stressful undertaking, it makes sense that those with lower stress thresholds might avoid engaging.
The other factor most highly affecting voting turnout was age, with older people voting more often. This study suggested that hormone levels, as well as demographics, should be taken into consideration, however.
One thing to note is that much of this research is that it is based primarily on surveys conducted where participants self-report. Although participants have no reason to lie in such studies, there is always the chance. But data on these larger scales is likely to be fairly indicative, and statistics do not lie (most of the time).
A note from the author: As I sometimes write on emotive subjects, comments are disabled after 14 days. This is because ongoing discussions tend to stagnate.