Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure, or a preference for knowledge that is certain and clear, tend to adopt conservative system-justifying ideologies. Nevertheless, few studies have examined the intervening orientations responsible for this relationship. While conservatism is anchored in values that both support tradition and oppose equality, we suggest that the need for closure is linked primarily with the former. In three studies, we found (a) that the need for closure is more strongly related to support for tradition than opposition to equality, and (b) that the indirect effect of the need for closure on conservatism is stronger via the former than the latter. By clarifying the links between the need for closure and multiple antecedents of ideology, these findings provide new insight into the psychological foundations of political belief by suggesting that the need for closure is not equally relevant to all aspects of system justification.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper.
2.
AlfordJ. R.FunkC. L.HibbingJ. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted?American Political Science Review, 99, 153–168. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051579
3.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.”Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
5.
BraithwaiteV. (1994). Beyond Rokeach’s equality-freedom model: Two dimensional values in a one-dimensional world. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 67–94. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01198.x
6.
CheungM. W.-L. (2007). Comparison of approaches to computing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 227–246. doi:10.1080/10705510709336745
7.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CunninghamW. A.NezlekJ. B.BanajiM. R. (2004). Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: Revisiting the ideologies of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1332–1346. doi:10.1177/0146167204264654
9.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 41–113. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6
10.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2009). A dual process model of ideological attitudes and system justification. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 292–313). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
12.
EriksonR. S.TedinK. L. (2003). American public opinion (6th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
13.
EysenckH. J. (1954). The psychology of politics. New York, NY: Praeger.
14.
FedericoC. M.GolecA.DialJ. (2005). The relationship between need for closure and support for military action against Iraq: Moderating effects of national attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 621–632. doi:10.1177/0146167204271588
15.
FedericoC. M.GorenP. (2009). Motivated social cognition and ideology: Is attention to elite discourse a prerequisite for epistemically motivated political affinities? In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 267–291). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
FedericoC. M.HuntC. V.ErgunD. (2009). Political expertise, social worldviews, and ideology: Translating “competitive jungles” and “dangerous worlds” into ideological reality. Social Justice Research, 22, 259–279. doi:10.1007/s11211-009-0097-0
17.
FedericoC. M.HuntC. V.FisherE.L. (2013). Status-based asymmetries in motivated group-centrism: Evidence that group status strengthens the relationship between the need for cognitive closure and ingroup bias. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 473–494. doi:10.1111/josi.12025
18.
FeldmanS. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416–440. doi:10.2307/2111130
19.
FeldmanS. (2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In SearsD. O.HuddyL.JervisR. (Eds.) Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
FeldmanS.JohnstonC. (2013). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/pops.12055
21.
FleishmanJ. A. (1988). Attitude organization in the general public: Evidence for a bidimensional structure. Social Forces, 67, 159–184. doi:10.1093/sf/67.1.159
22.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M.HaS. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000031
23.
GorenP.FedericoC. M.KittilsonM. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and value positions. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 806–820. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00402.x
24.
HennesE. P.NamH. H.SternC.JostJ. T. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30, 669–688. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
25.
HirshJ. B.DeYoungC. G.XuX.PetersonJ. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 655–664. doi:10.1177/0146167210366854
26.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.BaldacciK. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091–1099. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.003
28.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651
30.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, function, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
31.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
32.
JostJ. T.NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.GoslingS. D.PalfaiT. P.OstafinB. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 989–1007. doi:10.1177/0146167207301028
33.
JostJ. T.ThompsonE. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
34.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
35.
KruglanskiA. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (pp. 493–522). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
KuglerM. B.CooperJ.NosekB. A. (2010). Group-based dominance and support for equality as consequences of different psychological motives. Social Justice Research, 23, 117–155. doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0112-5
37.
LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (1967). Party systems and voter alignment. New York, NY: Free Press.
38.
MuellerR. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
39.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2006). [Validation of a revised need for cognitive closure scale]. Unpublished raw data, Universita di Roma, “La Sapienza.”
42.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
43.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
44.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
45.
SchwartzS. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In VinkenH.SoetersJ.EsterP. (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.
46.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279. doi:10.1177/1088868308319226
47.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
StangorC.LearyS. P. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 243–281. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38005-7
49.
StennerK. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Van HielA.PandelaereM.DuriezB. (2004). The impact of the need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 824–837. doi:10.1177/0146167204264333
51.
WeberC. W.FedericoC. M. (2007). Interpersonal attachment and patterns of ideological belief. Political Psychology, 28, 389–416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00579.x
52.
WeberC.FedericoC. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34, 107–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00922.x
53.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
54.
WilsonG. D. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. New York, NY: Academic Press.
