Have you ever listened to someone whose political views differ sharply from your own and felt stunned, wondering how they could possibly believe what they’re saying? Even when looking at exactly the same information, people often interpret it in radically different ways. This has puzzled me for a long time and I’ve tried to find answers in the scientific literature.
We all like to think our political beliefs are shaped purely by reason, personal experiences, and deeply-held values. But have you ever considered that biological and psychological differences might also play a role? Over the years, I’ve come across research hinting at these kinds of influences on political views. Intrigued, I decided to take a deeper dive to explore this fascinating topic further, especially given the extent of political polarization we’re witnessing at the moment.
It turns out that over the past two decades researchers have uncovered striking neurological, genetic, physiological, and psychological differences between people who lean conservative compared with those who lean liberal. While our environments shape our views, science suggests that how we process information in our world—how we handle uncertainty, respond to threats, and weigh moral choices in particular—may be influenced by the way we’re built.
Brain Structure and Political Orientation
Brain imaging research by Kanai et al. (2011) found evidence of structural differences between conservatives and liberals. The research found that conservatives typically have a larger and more active amygdala, a region responsible for processing fear and threats, which could possibly explaining their strong emphasis on security, law enforcement, and national defense. Liberals, on the other hand, were found to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, a brain region involved in managing uncertainty and adapting to change, which could explain their greater openness to new ideas and social change.
The Genetics of Political Beliefs
Genetics also appears to play a role. Twin studies suggest that about 30-60% of political ideology may be inherited (Hatemi & McDermott, 2012). For example, individuals with a specific variant of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene, related to dopamine regulation and novelty-seeking behavior, are more likely to identify as liberal and this was particularly true if they've had diverse social experiences. So clearly, genetics sets the stage, but environment appears to influence the expression in behavior.
Physiological Responses to Threat
Beyond brain structure and genetics, conservatives and liberals also appear to differ in how their bodies react to the world.
An interesting 2008 study by Oxley et al. found that conservatives exhibited stronger physiological responses to sudden loud noises and disturbing images. Their heightened sensitivity to threat correlates with a preference for policies that emphasize stability and protection.
Moral Foundations and Political Differences
Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory proposes that political beliefs are deeply intertwined with fundamental moral instincts. Research conducted to examine this theory (Haidt & Graham, 2007; Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009) found that Liberals prioritize care/harm and fairness/reciprocity, strongly aligning with social justice, while conservatives value these foundations too, but they also emphasize loyalty, authority, and sanctity, supporting patriotism, tradition, and religious values. These differences in moral orientations, shaped by both biology and experience, provide additional insight into why political disagreements often feel more like deep moral divides than purely policy debates.
affective polarization and cognitive biases
Recent research has expanded these insights considerably. Dannagal Young and colleagues (2024) highlight how "epistemological identity"—our sense of belonging to groups based on shared ways of understanding truth—drives political polarization. This concept of expressive epistemology suggests people adopt beliefs aligned with their group's values, further entrenching divisions. Druckman and Levy (2021) emphasize that affective polarization, the growing emotional hostility between opposing political groups, profoundly impacts how facts are interpreted, causing individuals to dismiss or distort information that challenges their group's identity or values.
Studies exploring biases toward specific groups provide additional insights. Jones et al. (2018) found that ideological predispositions significantly influence public attitudes toward transgender individuals, with conservatives often less supportive due to underlying psychological factors like traditionalism and discomfort with ambiguity. Stern et al. (2013) revealed ideological differences even in subconscious processes, showing conservatives rely more heavily on traditional gender cues when categorizing sexual orientation, highlighting deep-rooted cognitive differences tied to ideological beliefs.
Research on cognitive style also underscores these divisions. Ostrofsky and Shobe (2015) discovered that individuals with a higher "need for cognitive closure"—a desire for certainty and aversion to ambiguity—tend to prefer realism in art, hinting that this psychological trait may similarly affect political orientation, with conservatives often exhibiting a greater need for certainty and clear structure. Cacioppo and Petty’s classic work (1982) on the "need for cognition"—an individual’s enjoyment of thinking and problem-solving—suggests liberals may enjoy more complex, nuanced analyses, whereas conservatives might prefer clear, straightforward solutions.
What This Means
It’s important to point out that none of this suggests that political beliefs are biologically predetermined. Clearly, your upbringing, the people you associate with, the news sources you rely on all make some contribution too. In fact, the direction of causality could even be reversed. However created, it is clear that biology influences the processing of information so differently. If our brains, genes, and bodies influence to a certain degree how we see the world, recognizing these differences can foster better dialogue and understanding.
Next time you’re in a political debate, consider that the other person might not just think differently—they might actually be wired differently. Keeping this in mind can help you communicate more effectively by framing your arguments and understanding their perspective through the insights offered by the fascinating research summarized in this post. Approaching discussions with empathy and awareness of these underlying differences can lead to more meaningful and productive exchanges.
references
Given that this blog post relies so heavily on research findings, I’ve decided to include references to the sources that it is based on.
Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21(8), 677-680.
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., … & Hibbing, J. R. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321(5896), 1667-1670.
Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525-533.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.
Young, D. G., Molokach, B., & Oittinen, E. M. (2024). Lay epistemology and the populist’s playbook: The roles of epistemological identity and expressive epistemology. Current Opinion in Psychology.
Druckman, J. N., & Levy, J. (2021). Affective polarization in the American public. Northwestern Institute for Policy Research.
Jones, P. E., Brewer, P. R., Young, D. G., Lambe, J. L., & Hoffman, L. H. (2018). Explaining public opinion toward transgender people, rights, and candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 252-278.
Stern, C., West, T. V., Jost, J. T., & Rule, N. O. (2013). The politics of gaydar: Ideological differences in the use of gendered cues in categorizing sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 520-541.
Ostrofsky, J., & Shobe, E. R. (2015). The relationship between need for cognitive closure and the appreciation, understanding, and viewing times of realistic and nonrealistic figurative paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33(1), 106-113.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.