Political Ideology and Consumption: Perspectives and Effects

Next article FreePolitical Ideology and Consumption: Perspectives and EffectsRashmi Adaval and Robert S. Wyer Jr.Rashmi Adaval and Robert S. Wyer Jr.PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe influence of political ideology on individuals' behavior and their endorsement of social policies is pervasive, and its impact on their economic and social well-being is incontrovertible. The influence of political ideology is evident not only in how recent social events have been interpreted (e.g., the storming of the Capitol on January 6, the murder of George Floyd, etc.) but also in people's everyday nonpolitical behavior (e.g., their choice and purchases of consumer goods and other consumption-related activity). The research reported in this special issue documents the effects of political ideology on reactions to various consumption-related experiences. Although no single theory of political ideology can easily account for the diversity of the phenomena reported in this special issue, an understanding of the different perspectives from which political ideology has been studied is helpful to understand these effects.Much of the research on political ideology identifies people with different beliefs along on a liberalism-conservatism dimension. Although these end points are closely aligned with Democratic and Republican political parties, party identity is not always consistent with people's beliefs on specific issues (Wyer et al. 1991; Huddy, Mason, and Aaroe 2015). Yet the current disposition of federal legislators to vote along party lines and the polarized attitudes of those who belong to these parties suggest that the schism emerges partly from deep-seated differences in ideological beliefs and thinking styles. Differences in conservative-liberal beliefs have been attributed to personality, evolution and genetics, all of which presumably affect the cognitive and physiological reactions of individuals to a variety of issues. In the following section, we provide a background of research that has been conducted from different perspectives. We then review the research reported in this volume in relation to these perspectives.General Perspectives in Political IdeologyEvolutionary Roots: The Feeling BrainEvolutionary psychologists have often relied on the parasite stress theory (Fincher and Thornhill 2012) to describe how conservatism and liberalism evolve. According to this theory, people learn to avoid individuals who are likely to harm them via infections and transmitted disease. This response can give rise to conservative social attitudes against strangers and foreigners as they represent a threat (Brown, Fincher, and Walasek 2016). Not surprisingly, conservatives respond more negatively to ambiguous faces that seem threatening to them (Vigil 2010). Similar avoidance reactions have been noted toward other types of negative or aversive stimuli. For example, political conservatives report greater disgust and violations of purity than liberals do (Inbar, Pizarro, and Bloom 2009; Inbar et al. 2012). They also react more negatively to disgusting themes (e.g., mutilated bodies) in functional MRI studies (Ahn et al. 2014). Thus, according to this evolutionary perspective, purity, sanctity, and in-group bias arise out of this fear of contamination - a quick gut-level affective response.Interestingly, this response has been related to a sense of moral violation and associated with a different conceptualization known as moral foundations theory (Haidt 2007). This theory suggests that people make moral judgments quickly and intuitively and that these intuitive decisions about right and wrong are the basis for principles relating to care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Those high in conservatism tend to value purity, loyalty to in-groups, and submission to authority (Haidt and Graham 2007). In contrast, liberals value care and the ability to empathize—principles that foster fairness and an openness toward members of the outgroup. These differences imply that conservatives are disposed to make more intuitive, affect-based judgments, particularly when there are violations of purity, loyalty, and authority. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to be concerned with fairness and care for others—judgments that require reflection and cognitive elaboration.Differences in the emphasis on feelings (vs. reflection) were noted by Hofstadter (1963) in his analysis of the role of anti-intellectualism in daily life. Although these ideas originated in the McCarthy era 60 years ago, they are equally applicable today. Intellectualism is characterized by a "critical, creative and contemplative state of mind" (1963, 29). Unlike intelligence (which refers to the ability to seize the meaning of information quickly and adapt to its implications), intellectualism is reflective, being characterized by a critical evaluation of ideas and the entertainment of alternatives to the status quo. In contrast, anti-intellectualism is characterized by "resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind" (9). It is exemplified by a reliance on intuition as a basis for judgment rather than a thoughtful evaluation of alternatives. To this extent, anti-intellectuals' judgments and decisions are likely to be influenced by emotional appeals and the use of heuristics. Hofstadter quotes the Grand Wizard of the KKK as saying that "all action comes from emotion rather than from ratiocination … our emotions and instincts … have been bred into us for thousands of years, longer than reason has had a place in the human brain" (141).Neurological evidence is consistent with these ideas about the reliance on feelings and cognitions. MRI studies show that conservatives have greater gray matter than liberals in the right amygdala, a region that is sensitive to emotionally salient information such as fear inducing stimuli (Kanai et al. 2011). Liberals, on the other hand, have relatively greater gray matter and ERP activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, which processes signs of change, and in the left prefrontal cortex that typifies approach tendencies (Amodio et al. 2007; Schreiber et al. 2013). Thus, much of this research suggests that right brain activation (avoidance reactions) characterize conservatives, whereas left-brain activation (approach tendencies) are more characteristic of liberals.Personality and Motivational DifferencesAlthough political orientations might be associated with certain genes (Eaves et al. 1999; Alford, Funk, and Hibbing 2005; Dawes et al. 2014; Hatemi et al. 2014), it is difficult to apportion the variance that comes from an individual's response to environmental stressors, life events and genetic predisposition. Personality develops in response to both genetic predispositions and environmental situations. Thus, to the extent that political ideology emerges from an individual's reaction to the environment, repeated responses should lead to stable personality characteristics. Indeed, the bulk of the research on political ideology has drawn on personality differences to explain how those who subscribe to different ideologies differ (Jost et al 2003; Caprara et al. 2006). When the "big five" traits (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are correlated with political ideology, the strongest relationships appear in the cases of conscientiousness and openness. The traits associated with conscientiousness and openness appear to map on to the avoidance and approach tendencies mentioned earlier. Conservatives show a stronger relationship with traits associated with conscientiousness (e.g., stability, conformity, tradition, order, structure, closure, purity, authority, preference for low complexity, etc.), whereas liberals show a stronger correlation with traits associated with openness (e.g., novelty, flexibility and variability, tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, equality, etc.).These personality traits obviously induce different motivational tendencies. For example, the desire to reduce fear and anxiety about the world in which they live motivates individuals to adopt attitudes and behaviors that reaffirm order and stability. Conservatives might acquire a well-defined system of beliefs about the world in which they live (i.e., a cultural worldview) that provides a feeling of stability and control and allows them to make sense of the events that occur in daily life. When events occur that threaten the validity of these beliefs, however, they experience anxiety and become motivated to regain their feeling of stability by reaffirming the validity of this worldview (Jost et al. 2003). Although this anxiety can be situationally induced, it can also become chronic, resulting from an accumulation of life experiences that give rise to a general feeling of insecurity. The effects of chronic anxiety can be manifested in several ways, including a need for cognitive closure and an intolerance of ambiguity (Carney et al. 2008; Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009; Caparos et al. 2015), uncertainty avoidance (Jost et al. 2007), and resistance to change (Jost et al. 2003). More generally, conservatives might be motivated to base judgments and decisions on previously formed criteria and resist the adoption of social policies that might require changes in the status quo.In contrast, the beliefs that compose liberals' worldview are less rigidly defined and thus are less likely to be threatened by events that call their validity into question. Therefore, liberals are more flexible, more open to alternative points of view, and more willing to seek diversity in their life experiences. Moreover, they are more tolerant of others' views that differ from their own, more willing to empathize with others, and more inclined to value fairness and equality in social policy as well as in their personal lives.A Cognitive Analysis of Political IdeologiesThe cognitions associated with different political ideologies can also be understood in terms of specific cognitive operations or information processing tendencies (e.g., Carraro, Castelli, and Macchiella 2011; Castelli and Carraro 2011; Dodd, Hibbing, and Smith 2016; Mills et al. 2016), as well as larger level cognitive systems of thinking (Lakoff 2002).One stream of research focuses on how individuals with different ideological leanings respond cognitively to environmental stimuli. Some research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to negative stimuli. For example, they pay greater attention to negative emotion words in a Stroop task and respond more slowly. They also are more likely to direct their attention to areas where negative information is presented (Carraro et al. 2011), are faster to fixate on negative information in eye-tracking studies (Dodd et al. 2016), and more likely to remember negative information (Mills et al. 2016).The heightened sensitivity to threat naturally translates into thinking styles. Conservatives tend to use heuristics (stereotypes), whereas those who are more liberal tend to be more comfortable with reflection as measured by the cognitive reflection test (Deppe et al. 2015). Liberals also tend to be less field dependent and are more likely to engage in contemplation (Talhelm et al. 2015). Conservatives are more likely than liberals to show a persistent pattern of responding (e.g., in go-no-go tasks) even when it is not advantageous to do so (Amodio et al. 2007). This resistance to change is consistent with their greater tendency to use of heuristics and stereotypes.A broader view of the cognitive underpinnings of political ideology is provided by Lakoff (2002). Taking a linguistic perspective, he suggests that the conceptual basis of how we think about issues such as morality, politics, and economics is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. Although this abstract thought is based on the lower-level input from the sensorimotor or emotional system, metaphors are essential to gain an understanding of more abstract concepts. Ideological differences in politics are therefore embodied in two different cognitive systems, each of which has its own set of rules and principles that guide behavioral decisions and evaluations of social policy. One, metaphorically characterized as a "strict father" system, emphasizes self-discipline, self-reliance and the acceptance of personal responsibility, obedience to authority, and the use of reward and punishment to reinforce behavior. The other, "nurturant parent" system, emphasizes the need to provide support and protection to those who cannot help themselves and is characterized by empathy and caring, fairness and equal opportunity, and the provision of resources that help people to have a happy life. In contrast to the strict parent system, social responsibility is motivated by love and respect for others and not by the fear of punishment. Lakoff provides an in-depth analysis of the implications of these cognitive systems for judgments and behavior in numerous life domains, including reactions to federally funded social programs, taxation, education, and crime and punishment. (Social programs, for example, are seen by "nurturant parent" liberals as ensuring citizens' basic needs and facilitating life fulfillment but are seen by "strict parent" conservatives as coddling and undermining self-reliance.)An IntegrationIn combination, the three perspectives outlined above suggest that ideological differences in conservatism and liberalism might be understood by considering distinctions in how members that belong to different ends of the spectrum use feelings, vary in their motivation to maintain the status quo and consequently the traits they value and express, as well as their cognitive processes. In general, conservatives are characterized by the use of intuition and emotion as a basis for judgments and decisions, whereas liberals are characterized by their use of reason and logical analysis. Conservatives, because of their greater sensitivity to threat, are more likely than liberals to resist changes in the existing social system. In terms of broader level values, conservatives' reliance on heuristics and fixed patterns of behavior is reflected in conformity to clearly defined principles of social behavior (consistent with a "strict parent" metaphor). In contrast, liberals are characterized by their use of reason and logical analysis, by openness to change and diversity, and by the endorsement of a social system that values fairness, social equality, and support for individuals in need.These general orientations have implications for the way in which political ideology affects a wide range of consumption behaviors. Although the research reported in this special issue makes specific assumptions about the factors that account for ideological differences in the behaviors described, it can generally be conceptualized in terms of the three formulations we have outlined.Effects of Political Ideology on Consumer BehaviorReceptivity and Openness to ExperiencesA common thread that pervades all three conceptualizations of political ideology concerns the openness to new experiences. Several findings reported in this issue are consistent with this implication. Rogers and Jost (2022), for example, find that liberals engage in a wide diversity of consumption-related activities. Compared to conservatives, for example, they attend a greater diversity of live performances, have more hobbies, prefer a greater variety of music genres, and drink more different brands of beer. On the other hand, they are less inclined than conservatives to seek variety in activities that exemplify American culture, such as visits to fast-food or chain restaurants. The effects are independent of age or income.This ideological difference was also identified in other research reported in this issue. Buechner et al. (2022), for example, found that liberals are more inclined than conservatives to prefer global experiences (e.g., beer brands from around the world, college courses that come from different cultures, etc.) to local ones. Although the authors attribute these effects to differences in cognitive flexibility, they reflect an openness to new experiences as well.Openness, however, can be situationally induced and consequently can sometimes override the chronic effects of political ideology. Errmann, Seo, and Septianto (2022) exposed participants to a charitable appeal from either a source that emphasizes authority, duty and in-group loyalty (the Salvation Army) or a source that emphasizes harm reduction, fairness, and care (the World Wildlife Fund). Both conservatives' and liberals' reactions to the appeal were typically based on their stereotyped attitudes toward the source of the appeal and the benefits the charity provides. In a series of studies, however, participants' "mindfulness" was first induced by asking them to focus their attention either internally (on their body sensations) or externally (on other people in the environment). This procedure led participants to think more carefully about implications of the appeal they considered later and to base their judgment on these implications rather than using a superficial (heuristic) basis for judgment. Thus, it increased the willingness to support charities whose values were ideologically inconsistent with their own. This was true of both liberals and conservatives.Need for Predictability and StructureThe lack of openness to new experiences among conservatives is also reflected in their need for predictability and structure. Chan, Northey, and Borau (2022), however, distinguish between economic conservatism and social conservatism. Economic conservatism stems from a need to preserve stability and hierarchies that help make life more predictable. Their desire for predictability is evident in their preference for automated products which provide output of consistent quality. Social conservatism, on the other hand, emphasizes conventionalism (tradition) and submission to authority. Individuals who score high on social conservatism do not reveal such a preference for automated products.An important feature of these findings is that activating concepts that were objectively unrelated to the products being judged influenced reactions to these products. Research in other domains, such as mortality salience (Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski 2004) and need for control (Jia and Wyer 2022) also suggests that the need for structure is pervasive and that, once activated, its effects can generalize over a variety of experiential domains.Kwon, Manikas, and Barone (2022) provide intriguing examples of this generalization. They hypothesized that surrounding a stimulus (a product description or a persuasive message) by a frame can convey a sense of structure and stability that generalizes to the stimulus itself (see Kwan, Dai, and Wyer [2017] for similar generalization effects). Political conservatives, who presumably have a need for structure, respond more favorably than liberals to a framed stimulus than to an unframed one. In a particularly intriguing study, participants read governmental recommendations for controlling the pandemic, that were either presented in a frame or not. Conservatives were generally less likely than liberals to accept the recommendations independently of framing. However, although framing had no effect on liberals' acceptance of the recommendations, it had a positive impact on conservatives' acceptance if they had a high need for structure. Moreover, if conservatives had a low need for structure, framing had a negative impact, indicating that they resisted governmental restrictions on their freedom.Value-Based JudgmentsBoth Lakoff's conceptualization and the effects of system justification motivation suggest that liberals and conservatives form different values that influence reactions to many life events they encounter. For example, conservatives acquire values that "bind" them to the society in which they live (in-group loyalty, allegiance to authority, etc.). These values conform to the "strict parent" syndrome, emphasizing self-reliance, self-discipline and the acceptance of personal responsibility. These values also lead them to react negatively to programs that provide support for people in need without requiring reciprocity. An intriguing example is provided by Goenka and Thomas (2022), who find that conservatives resist participating in federally funded social welfare programs that provide benefits on the basis of need alone. On the other hand, they are willing to receive benefits from welfare programs that have a work requirement, thus allowing them to reciprocate the benefits they receive. Liberals, in contrast, prefer programs without a work requirement. These findings seem consistent with the strict and nurturant parent metaphors.A quite different effect of the difference in liberals' and conservatives' values was identified by Kyung, Thomas, and Krishna (2022). To reiterate, liberals are other-focused, exhibiting a concern for others, whereas conservatives are more self-focused, valuing responsibility, self-discipline. and in-group loyalty. These different values could be reflected in perceptions of risk either to an individual or to one's in-group as a whole. Moreover, the focus on the group or an individual could also depend on how the question concerning risk was asked. Thus, suppose people who are asked the likelihood that an individual American will die from the COVID-19 pandemic presumably focus on the risk to the individual. In this case, conservatives, who are concerned with their personal well-being, should judge the risk of dying from the virus to be high. In contrast, suppose that people are asked to estimate the total number of Americans who will die. This question leads them to think about the risk to the group as a whole. In this case, liberals, who are concerned about others' well-being, should perceive the risk to be high, whereas conservatives, who are less concerned about others, should not. As implied by these considerations, conservatives (but not liberals) overestimated the likelihood of the average American dying of the virus, whereas liberals (but not conservatives) overestimated the number of Americans who would die in the population as a whole. These findings help answer a question that has vexed many: Why do threat-sensitive conservatives resist precautionary advice during the pandemic? The relative salience of the values might provide an answer.Two additional articles highlight how consumers respond to products and promotional gifts that are aligned with a conservative or liberal ideology. Brand activism, for example, should be liked by liberals because they are concerned with justice for all. Conservatives, on the other hand, might find it more disruptive of the status quo and should be less likely to respond favorably to it. Garg and Saluja (2022) examine these tendencies and show that although this might appear to be the case, liberals do not respond well if the brand activism is inconsistent with their values. Conservatives, on the other hand respond favorably if the activism supports their values. These effects are driven by affective responses to ideologically consistent values. Furthermore, if the brand activism was perceived to be inauthentic, neither group responded favorably to it.Ding, Joireman, and Sprott (2022) found a similar adherence to values in a gift giving context. Some brands (e.g., Starbucks) have a liberal image, whereas others (e.g., Chick-fil-A) have a conservative image. If individuals receive a gift card from a company whose image is symbolically incongruent with their own political orientation, they are less likely to appreciate it particularly if political ideology is central to their self-concept. However, if persuasion intent is not inferred or if ideologically consistent symbols are included in the cards, it reduces rejection of these gifts.It would be misleading, however, to assume that conservatives and liberals always make judgments and decisions consistent with their political ideology. This depends on their perception of the implications of their judgments and the salience of their values at the time. An intriguing set of studies by Mas, Haws and Goldsmith (2022) exemplify this contingency. Restaurant customers are often confronted with more food than they want to eat. In such cases, they have a choice between overeating or stopping at the point at which they feel comfortable and letting the rest of the food go to waste. When the concept of wastefulness is salient to them, liberals feel obligated to protect the environment and to benefit the society as a whole. Therefore, they typically overconsume rather than letting the food be thrown away. In contrast, conservatives are more motivated by self-interest. Thus, they are more inclined than liberals to let the food go to waste. These different dispositions, however, are not evident unless the concept of wastefulness is unobtrusively called to their attention.Sensitivity to Communication Cues: Effects of StereotypesA common theme in the theoretical perspectives we outlined earlier is that conservatives are more likely to use stereotypes. A series of studies by Maeng and Aggarwal (2022) not only confirms conservatives use of a stereotype as a basis for judgment but shows that unobtrusive physical characteristics of a person (i.e., the shape of one's face) can activate the stereotype. They found that when the faces were allegedly male, both conservatives and liberals rated those with a high width-to-height ratio as dominant. Interestingly, although the ratio was positively related to conservatives' voting intentions, it was related negatively to liberals' intentions. When the same faces were attributed to females, however, the width-to-height ratio was not associated with dominance judgments or voting intentions, and this was true regardless of judges' political orientation. In summary, these findings suggest that conservatives are more likely than liberals to use facial features as a stereotype-based criterion to infer dominance. However, the stereotype is applied only if the target person is male. Perhaps when the target is female, the dominance that is associated with her face's width-to-height ratio is offset by the low dominance that is stereotypically characteristic of females in general, and so the effects cancel one another out.This sensitivity to stereotype-related cues was examined by Torelli, Guo, and Cho (2022). They examined how women perceived brands that promoted a "sexually objectified" image (i.e., a stereotyped image of women as sex objects). Women's reactions to these different brands depend on their political orientation. Torelli et al. (2022) note that liberal women are likely to seek justice and equality for all, and the portrayal of women as sexual instruments reinforces the existing status quo and their lower position in society. Thus, they might rebel against sexually objectified portrayals of women in ads. However, liberal women might also support the right of women to express themselves in any way they want to eliminate any sort of power differential. Field and lab studies showed that liberal women were likely to reject sexually objectified appeals because of their rejection of benevolent sexism. However, they were willing to accept ads that showed sexual independence. Conservative women, on the other hand, were less responsive to such differences and appeared to be generally more supportive of sexually objectified images. Torelli et al.'s findings suggest that conservatives (at least females) are more inclined to use social stereotypes that are dominant in the society at large.SummaryOur summary of the effects of political ideology on consumption was couched within three different perspectives that emphasize affective, motivational and cognitive roots. Although specific findings can be interpreted using different perspectives, we suggest that a greater focus on understanding the extent to which these effects are due to affective, cognitive or motivational factors might help advance our understanding of the effects of ideology on consumption. Thus, although some effects are due to stable individual differences as opposed to situational cues, many questions obviously remain. As but one example, some of the research indicates that although chronic differences exist in the effects of political ideology on judgments and decisions, these differences can be decreased or eliminated by situational factors. Other research, however, suggests that ideological differences are evident only when situational factors make ideology-related concepts salient. The factors that give rise to these sets of conditions need to be articulated. This summary, along with the research reported in this special issue, hopefully sets the stage for these sorts of investigations.ReferencesAhn, Woo-Young, Kenneth T. Kishida, Xiaosi Gu, Terry Lohrenz, Ann Harvey, John R. Alford, Kevin B. Smith, Gideon Yaffe, John R. Hibbing, Peter Dayan, and P. Read Montague (2014), "Nonpolitical Images Evoke Neural Predictors of Political Ideology," Current Biology, 24 (22), 2693–99.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarAlford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing (2005), "Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?" American Political Science Review, 99 (2), 153–67.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarAmodio, David M., John T. Jost, Sarah L. Master, and Cindy M. Yee (2007), "Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism," Nature Neuroscience, 10 (September), 1246–47.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarBrown, Gordon D. A., Corey L. Fincher, and Lukasz Walasek (2