The cognitive and perceptual correlates of ideological attitudes

Although human existence is enveloped by ideologies, remarkably little is understood about the relationships between ideological attitudes ... Logintoyouraccount Email Password Forgotpassword? Keepmeloggedin NewUser InstitutionalLogin ChangePassword OldPassword NewPassword TooShort Weak Medium Strong VeryStrong TooLong Congrats! Yourpasswordhasbeenchanged Createanewaccount Email Returninguser Can'tsignin?Forgotyourpassword? Enteryouremailaddressbelowandwewillsendyoutheresetinstructions Email Cancel Iftheaddressmatchesanexistingaccountyouwillreceiveanemailwithinstructionstoresetyourpassword. Close RequestUsername Can'tsignin?Forgotyourusername? Enteryouremailaddressbelowandwewillsendyouyourusername Email Close Iftheaddressmatchesanexistingaccountyouwillreceiveanemailwithinstructionstoretrieveyourusername OpenAccessMoreSectionsViewPDF ToolsAddtofavoritesDownloadCitationsTrackCitations ShareShareonFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Citethisarticle ZmigrodLeor, EisenbergIanW., BissettPatrickG., RobbinsTrevorW.and PoldrackRussellA. 2021Thecognitiveandperceptualcorrelatesofideologicalattitudes:adata-drivenapproachPhil.Trans.R.Soc.B3762020042420200424http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0424SectionSupplementalMaterialOpenAccessResearcharticlesThecognitiveandperceptualcorrelatesofideologicalattitudes:adata-drivenapproachLeorZmigrodLeorZmigrodhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8270-7955DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UKBehaviouralandClinicalNeuroscienceInstitute,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UK[email protected]GoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthor,IanW.EisenbergIanW.EisenbergDepartmentofPsychology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA94305,USAGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthor,PatrickG.BissettPatrickG.BissettDepartmentofPsychology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA94305,USAGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthor,TrevorW.RobbinsTrevorW.Robbinshttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0642-5977DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UKBehaviouralandClinicalNeuroscienceInstitute,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UKGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthorandRussellA.PoldrackRussellA.Poldrackhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6755-0259DepartmentofPsychology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA94305,USAGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthorLeorZmigrodLeorZmigrodhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8270-7955DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UKBehaviouralandClinicalNeuroscienceInstitute,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UK[email protected]GoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthor,IanW.EisenbergIanW.EisenbergDepartmentofPsychology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA94305,USAGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthor,PatrickG.BissettPatrickG.BissettDepartmentofPsychology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA94305,USAGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthor,TrevorW.RobbinsTrevorW.Robbinshttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0642-5977DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UKBehaviouralandClinicalNeuroscienceInstitute,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UKGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthorandRussellA.PoldrackRussellA.Poldrackhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6755-0259DepartmentofPsychology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA94305,USAGoogleScholarFindthisauthoronPubMedSearchformorepapersbythisauthorPublished:22February2021https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0424AbstractAlthoughhumanexistenceisenvelopedbyideologies,remarkablylittleisunderstoodabouttherelationshipsbetweenideologicalattitudesandpsychologicaltraits.Evenlessisknownabouthowcognitivedispositions—individualdifferencesinhowinformationisperceivedandprocessed—sculptindividuals'ideologicalworldviews,proclivitiesforextremistbeliefsandresistance(orreceptivity)toevidence.Usinganunprecedentednumberofcognitivetasks(n=37)andpersonalitysurveys(n=22),alongwithdata-drivenanalysesincludingdrift-diffusionandBayesianmodelling,weuncoveredthespecificpsychologicalsignaturesofpolitical,nationalistic,religiousanddogmaticbeliefs.Cognitiveandpersonalityassessmentsconsistentlyoutperformeddemographicpredictorsinaccountingforindividualdifferencesinideologicalpreferencesby4to15-fold.Furthermore,data-drivenanalysesrevealedthatindividuals’ideologicalattitudesmirroredtheircognitivedecision-makingstrategies.Conservatismandnationalismwererelatedtogreatercautioninperceptualdecision-makingtasksandtoreducedstrategicinformationprocessing,whiledogmatismwasassociatedwithslowerevidenceaccumulationandimpulsivetendencies.Religiositywasimplicatedinheightenedagreeablenessandriskperception.Extremepro-groupattitudes,includingviolenceendorsementagainstoutgroups,werelinkedtopoorerworkingmemory,slowerperceptualstrategies,andtendenciestowardsimpulsivityandsensation-seeking—reflectingoverlapswiththepsychologicalprofilesofconservatismanddogmatism.Cognitiveandpersonalitysignatureswerealsogeneratedforideologiessuchasauthoritarianism,systemjustification,socialdominanceorientation,patriotismandreceptivitytoevidenceoralternativeviewpoints;elucidatingtheirunderpinningsandhighlightingavenuesforfutureresearch.Togetherthesefindingssuggestthatideologicalworldviewsmaybereflectiveoflow-levelperceptualandcognitivefunctions.Thisarticleispartofthethemeissue‘Thepoliticalbrain:neurocognitiveandcomputationalmechanisms’.1.IntroductionOneofthemostpowerfulmetaphorsinpoliticalpsychologyhasbeenthatofelectiveaffinities—thenotionthatthereisamutualattractionbetween‘thestructureandcontentsofbeliefsystemsandtheunderlyingneedsandmotivesofindividualsandgroupswhosubscribetothem’[1].WithrootsinEnlightenmentphilosophyandMaxWeber'ssociology,thismetaphorcontendsthatcertainideologiesresonatewiththepsychologicalpredispositionsofcertainpeople.So,wecanelucidatepsycho-politicalprocessesbylogicallytracingthesecoherences,theseelectiveaffinitiesbetweenideasandinterests.Thisanalogyhasinspiredrichtheoriesabouttheepistemic,relationalandexistentialmotivationsthatdriveindividualstoadheretopoliticalideologies(e.g.[2]),highlightingtheroleofneedsforcoherence,connectednessandcertaintyinstructuringideologicalattitudes(e.g.[3–5]).Nonetheless,themethodologiesemployedtostudythesequestionshavebeenmostlyofasocialpsychologicalnature,relyingprimarilyonself-reportmeasuresofneedsfororder,cognitiveclosure,rigidityandothers(e.g.[2]).Thishasskewedtheacademicconversationtowardstheneedsandintereststhatideologiessatisfy,andobscuredtheroleofcognitivedispositionsthatcanpromote(orsuppress)ideologicalthinking[6].Infact,itisonlyrecentlythatresearchershavebeguntoemployneurocognitivetasksandanalyticapproachesfromcognitivescienceinordertotacklethequestion:whichcognitivetraitsshapeanindividual'sideologicalworldviews?Inthisinvestigation,wesoughttoapplycognitivemethodologiesandanalytictoolsinordertoidentifythecognitiveandpersonalitycorrelatesofideologicalattitudesinadata-drivenfashion.Borrowingmethodsfromcognitivepsychology,whichhaveestablishedsophisticatedtechniquestomeasureandanalyseperceptualandcognitiveprocessesinanobjectiveandimplicitway,andimplementingtheseinthestudyofideologycanfacilitatetheconstructionofamorewholisticandrigorouscognitivescienceofideology.Thiscanpushtheanalogyof‘electiveaffinities’intotherealmofperceptionandcognitiontoallowustotacklethequestion:arethereparallelsbetweenindividuals'ideologiesandtheirgeneralperceptualorcognitivestylesandstrategies?Furthermore,owingtolimitedresourcesandsiloedresearchdisciplines,manystudiesinsocialpsychologyfrequentlyfocusonasingleideologicaldomain(e.g.politicalconservatism)orasinglepsychologicaldomain(e.g.analyticalthinking).Whileanin-depthfocusonaspecificdomainisessentialfortheoreticaldevelopment,theselectionofhypothesesandmethodologiescanattimessufferfromproblemsofbiasandalackofconceptualintegrationacrossdifferentideologicalandpsychologicaldomains.Indeed,agrowingconcernhasemergedamongresearchersthatpsychologistsofpolitics,nationalismandreligiongeneratehypothesesanddevelopstudydesignsthatconfirmtheirpriorbeliefsabouttheoriginsofsocialdiscord[7–12].Itis,therefore,valuabletocomplementtheory-drivenresearchwithdata-drivenapproaches,whichcanhelptoovercomethesemethodologicalchallenges,aswellasofferawholisticviewofthesecomplexrelationshipsby‘lettingthedataspeak’.Perhapsmostimportantly,data-drivenresearchcanhelpvalidateorchallengetheory-drivenfindingsandconsequentlyofferdirectionsforfutureresearch.Thepresentinvestigation,therefore,aimedtoharnessnovelcognitiveapproaches,adata-drivenstudydesign,amixoffrequentistandBayesiananalyticapproachesandawide-rangingassessmentofbothpsychologicaltraitsandideologicaldomains.Itwasmotivatedbythequestions:towhatextentdotheideologiespeopleespousereflecttheircognitiveandpersonalitycharacteristics?Whatarethecommonalitiesanddifferencesbetweenthepsychologicalunderpinningsofdiverseideologicalorientations?Whatarethecontributionsofcognitiveprocessesversuspersonalitytraitstotheunderstandingofideologies?andwhichpsychologicaltraitsareassociatedwithone'slikelihoodofbeingattractedtoparticularideologies?Importantly,althougharigorouscognitivescienceofideologymaybeatitsinfancy,thesequestionsarenotentirelynew—scholarsacrossthesciencesandhumanitieshavelongtheorizedaboutthepsychologicaloriginsofcitizens'political,nationalisticandreligiousattitudes[2,13].Afertileliteraturehasrevealedthatindividuals’ideologicalinclinationsarerelatedtovariouspsychologicaltraits,suchastheirpersonalneedsfororderandstructure[3–5],cognitiveflexibility[6,14–18],metacognitionandlearningstyles[19,20]andevenperceptualreactivitytonegativeinformation[21–24].Theadventofpoliticalneuroscience[25],illustratingtheneuralstructuresandprocessesthatunderpin(political)ideology[26–32],spursevenmoreprofoundquestionsaboutthewaysinwhichcognitivemechanismsmaymediatebetweenthebrainandbelief.Ideologiescanbegenerallydescribedasdoctrinesthatrigidlyprescribeepistemicandrelationalnormsorformsofhostility[33].Thepresentinvestigationespousesadomain-generaloutlooktowardsthedefinitionofideology—focusingonthefactorsassociatedwiththinkingideologicallyinmultipledomains,suchaspolitics,nationalismandreligion.Thisincludesdogmatism,whichcanbeconceptualizedasacontent-freedimensionofideologicalthoughtreflectingthecertaintywithwhichideologicalbeliefsareheldandtheintolerancedisplayedtowardsalternativeoropposingbeliefs[34–36].Evaluatingthepsychologicalsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweendiverseideologicalorientationsinconcertfacilitatesacomprehensiveoverviewofthenatureofideologicalcognition.Here,weseektomapoutthepsychologicallandscapeoftheseideologicalorientationsbyinvestigatingwhichpsychologicalfactorsamongthosemeasuredbyalargebatteryofcognitivetasksandpersonalitysurveysaremostpredictiveofanindividual'sideologicalinclinations.Thisworkaimstobridgemethodologiesacrossthecognitiveandpoliticalsciences,identifykeyfociforfutureresearch,andillustratetheuseofincorporatingcognitiveandpersonalityassessmentswhenpredictingideologicalconvictions.ThecurrentstudybuildsonrecentworkbyEisenbergetal.[37,38],inwhichalargesampleofparticipants(n=522)completedanextensivesetof37well-establishedcognitivetasksand22self-reportsurveysfocusedonself-regulationandpersonalitycharacteristics.TheprocessofselectingthesemeasuresfromtherelevantliteratureswasdescribedindetailbyEisenbergetal.[37],butimportantly,thiswascompletedpriortoandwithnorelationtothequestionofideologies(figure 1).Throughfactoranalysis,Eisenbergetal.[38]constructeddata-drivenontologiesofcognitionandpersonality,identifyinga5-factorstructureforthecognitivetaskvariablesanda12-factorstructureforthepersonalitysurveyvariables.Thepoweroftheseontologiestopredictreal-worldhealthoutcomeswasevaluated[38].Astudyoftest–retestreliabilitiesdemonstratedthattheontologyfactorscorespossessedhighstabilityovertime[38,39](four-monthmeantest–retestreliabilityacrossfactorsofcognitivetaskontology:M=0.82;personalitysurveyontology:M=0.86;n=150);thisreliabilityhelpstoaddressthechallengesofobtainingrobustindividualdifferencesfromcognitiveparadigms[39–41].Inthepresentinvestigation,wesuccessfullyrecruited334participants(49.4%female;age:M=37.07,s.d.=8.49,range=22–63,allUnitedStates(US)residents)fromEisenbergetal.'soriginalsample[37]andadministeredsurveyspertainingtovariouspolitical,nationalisticandreligiousideologicalbeliefs,aswellasdogmatismanditsconceptualinverse,intellectualhumility(figure 2).Thisallowedustoaddressthequestion:whatpsychologicalfactorsaremostpredictiveofindividuals’ideologicalorientations? Figure1.Studytimeline.Collectionofpsychologicaldata(37cognitivetasksand22personalitysurveys)tookplacein2016.SelectionofthepsychologicalparadigmsisoutlinedintheEisenbergetal.work[37].Theontologieswerederived[38]thetest–retestreliabilitiesofthepsychologicalparadigmsweretested[39](inasubsampleof150participants)throughout2016and2017.Thepresentstudyreflectsthelasttwostepsin2018,when334participantsoftheoriginal522completedideologicalattitudessurveys,allowingustoinvestigatethepsychologicalcorrelatesofdiverseideologicalattitudes.DownloadfigureOpeninnewtabDownloadPowerPointFigure2.Summaryoftaskanalyticpipeline.Data-drivenderivationofthecognitivetaskontology(describedinEisenbergetal.[38]basedon522participantsallowedustoextracttheontologyfactorscoresforthe334participantsofthecurrentstudytoproducecognitivesignaturesofideologicalattitudes.(a)Participantscompleted37separatecognitivetaskmeasures,ofwhichasubsetareshown.(b)First-levelanalysisofeachmeasureresultedinanumberofdependentvariables(DVs).ChoiceReactionTimeandStopSignalareshownastwoexamplemeasures,fromwhichsevenDVsareextractedbymeansofdrift-diffusionmodelling(DDM).ParticipantscoresaredisplayedasdeviationsfromthemeanforeachofthesevenDVs.Asubsetofthe522totaloriginalparticipantsareshownasindividualdots.(c)Exploratoryfactoranalysis(EFA)projectseachDVfroma522-dimensionalparticipantfeaturespacetoalower-dimensionalfactorfeaturespace.(d)FivefactorsemergedfromtheEFAonthecognitivedata.(e)Threehundredandthirtyfourparticipantsofthe522originalparticipantscompletedideologicalattitudessurveys,facilitating(f)analysisoftherelationshipsbetweenparticipants'ideologicalattitudesandcognitivedispositions.Colourgradientin(d)and(e)reflectstheparticipants’scoresonthefactors.Adaptedwithpermission[38].DownloadfigureOpeninnewtabDownloadPowerPointThe5-factorcognitiveontologywascreatedbydecomposingeachofthe37cognitivetasksintomultipledependentmeasuresthatreflectedpsychologicallymeaningfulvariables,suchasaccuracyscores(e.g.inthecaseoftheKeepTracktaskthatrequiresworkingmemory),contrastsbetweendifferenttaskconditions(e.g.inatask-switchingtask,includingtask-switchcostandcue-switchcosts)andfittedmodelparametersusedtocapturespeededdecision-makingprocesses[38].Whereverappropriate,performanceontwo-choicetaskswasmodelledusingthedrift-diffusionmodel(DDM),whichtransformsaccuracyandreactiontimedataintointerpretablelatentvariablesincludingdriftrate(correspondingtotheaveragerateofevidenceaccumulation),threshold(correspondingtoresponsecautionintermsofspeed-accuracytrade-off)andnon-decisiontime(correspondingtothespeedofperceptualstimulusprocessingandmotorexecution).Thisresultedinatotalof129dependentcognitivemeasures,whichexploratoryfactoranalysisandmodelselectionbasedontheBayesianinformationcriterion(BIC)reducedtofiveprimarycognitivefactorslabelledaccordingtotheirstrongestloadingvariables:(i)Caution(capturingtheDDMthresholdparameter),(ii)PerceptualProcessingTime(capturingtheDDMnon-decisiontimeparameterandstop-signalreactiontimesassociatedwithresponseinhibitionprocesses),(iii)SpeedofEvidenceAccumulation(capturingtheDDMdriftrateparameterandotherrelatedprocesses),(iv)TemporalDiscounting(reflectingvariablesassociatedwiththeabilitytodelayimmediategratificationforalargerfuturereward),and(v)StrategicInformationProcessing(reflectingvariablesassociatedwithworkingmemorycapacity,planning,cognitiveflexibilityandotherhigher-orderstrategiesoccurringatalongertime-scalethanthespeededdecisionsmodelledbytheDDM).DetailedinformationonthenatureoftheontologyanditsconstituentelementscanbefoundinpapersbyEisenbergetal.[37–39].Thesamemethodologywasappliedtothe22self-reportpersonalitysurveys,resultingin64dependentmeasuresthatwerereducedto12factorsusingobliqueexploratoryfactoranalysis(figure 3).Thesepersonalityfactorswereassociatedwithspecificmeasurementscalesaimedatassessingvariouspsychologicalconstructs,forexample,SocialRisk-TakingandImpulsivity.Theresulting12personalityfactorswerelabelledbasedontheirassociatedmeasuresasindexing:(i)goal-directedness,(ii)impulsivity,(iii)rewardsensitivity,(iv)sensation-seeking,(v)emotionalcontrol,(vi)agreeableness,(vii)ethicalrisk-taking,(viii)riskperception,(ix)eatingcontrol,(x)mindfulness,(xi)financialrisk-taking,and(xii)socialrisk-taking.Theoriginalselectionofsurveysandtaskswasguidedbyafocusonmeasuresintendedtocaptureself-regulationandgoal-directedbehaviour[37].Notably,personalitywasherebroadlyconstruedintermsofself-reportedpsychologicaltraitsmeasuredwithestablishedsurveysthataimtotapintostableindividualdifferences,andsopersonalitywasnotdefinedintermsofanyparticularmodelofpersonality(e.g.theBigFive,thoughameasureoftheBigFivetraitswasincludedinthecreationofthesurveyontology,seefigure 3). Figure3.Creationofthepersonalityontologyusing(a)22personalitysurveys,(b)involving64separatedependentvariables(DVs)thatwerethen(c)subjectedtoexploratoryfactoranalysis(EFA).(d)Thisrevealed12factors,labelledinthefigure.Forthepresentstudy,eachparticipant'sfactorscoresonthese12personalityontologyfactorswereextractedandanalysedinrelationtotheirideologicalattitudes.AdaptedwithpermissionfromEisenbergetal.[38].DownloadfigureOpeninnewtabDownloadPowerPointByfractionatingindividualdifferencesinpsychologicaltraitsintoself-reportedpersonalityandbehaviourallyassessedcognition,weaddressthediversityinassessmentmethodsusedbysocialandcognitivepsychologiststomeasure‘cognitivestyle’[5,17].Indeed,recentstudieshaveshownthatself-reportandbehaviouralmeasuresofpsychologicaltraitsmaytapintodifferentprocesses[37,38,42],andthattherelationshipbetweenideologicalleaningsandcognitivestylemaybestrongerwhenthelatterismeasuredwithself-reportquestionnairesratherthanbehaviouraltasks[5].Aclearmethodologicaldistinctioncan,therefore,illuminatetherelationshipsbetweenpsychologicaldispositionsandideologicalbeliefs.Wemeasuredparticipants'ideologicalinclinationsacrossmultipledomainsbyadministering16establishedsurveysofideologicalorientations,whichwereselectedforinclusionfollowingaliteraturereview[43]thatexaminedconstructsacrosssocialandpoliticalpsychologyandprioritizedconstructsthatweretheoreticallyinfluentialinthefield(e.g.systemjustification,socialdominanceorientationandauthoritarianism[44,45]),widelyusedandhaveundergoneextensivescalevalidation(e.g.intellectualhumility[46]andthesocialandeconomicconservatismscale[47]).Decisionsregardingcontroversialorconceptuallyoverlappingideologicalmeasureshadtobetakenonbalance,andled,forexample,totheassessmentofauthoritarianismbutnotright-wingauthoritarianism(whichhasbeencriticizedforitsconflationwithfundamentalismorconservatism,e.g.[48–51].Asdepictedinfigure 1,participantscompletedtheideologicalattitudesbatteryapproximately25monthsaftertheinitialpsychologicalassessment.Theinitialassessmentsdidnotcontainmeasuresdirectlypertainingtoideologicalattitudes.Theideologicalattitudessurveysincludedself-reportedquestionnairesonnationalism,patriotism,socialandeconomicconservatism,systemjustification,dogmatism,opennesstorevisingone'sviewpointsandengagementwithreligion(seeMaterialsandmethods;theelectronicsupplementarymaterialtablesS1andS2andfigureS1).Exploratoryfactoranalysiswasconductedtoreducethedimensionalityoftheseideologicalorientations,revealinga3-factorstructurecorrespondingtothefollowingideologicalfactors:politicalconservatism,religiosityanddogmatism.Weusedthefactorscoresofeachparticipantfromthisexploratoryfactoranalysistovalidateandcondensethefindingsobtainedviathe16ideologicalorientations(seeMethodsandmaterials;electronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS4andtableS3).Forthesakeofbrevityandclarity,thefocusoftheanalysisisontheseideologicalfactorscores,buttheanalysesanddatafortheconstituentideologicalorientationsareavailableaswellintheelectronicsupplementarymaterial.Amultitudeofanalyticstrategieswereemployedwiththeaimofrigorouslytestingtherelationshipsbetweencognition,personalityandideology.Thisinvolvedfrequentistregressionanalysesanddimensionalityreduction,aswellasBayesianmodellingandBayesianModelAveraginginordertoquantifytheevidentialstrengthforthecontributionofthecognitiveandpersonalitytraits.Thisallowedustoelucidatewhichpsychologicaltraitsweremoststronglytiedtothediverseideologiesexamined,andtoconstructrobustsignaturesandpredictivemodelsthatcanbeusedbyresearchersinboththecognitiveandpoliticalsciencestomovethefieldforwardtowardsmoreinformedtheoriesofwhatmakesamindideological.2.Materialandmethods(a)ParticipantrecruitmentanddemographiccharacteristicsParticipantswererecruitedfromanexistingpoolofparticipantswhocompletedawiderangeofcognitivetasksandsurveysforEisenbergetal.[37]onAmazonMechanicalTurk(MTurk).All522originalparticipantswerecontactedviaMTurkandinvitedtoparticipateinanadditionalstudyforfinancialcompensation($7for30–45min),and334participantscompletedthestudy.ParticipantscompletedthesurveyonQualtrics.Thestudyreceivedethicalapprovalfromtheinstitution.Alldataandanalysiscodeareopenlyavailableatdoi:10.5281/zenodo.4434725.Withrespecttodemographiccharacteristics,participantswereaskedtoindicateage(yearofbirth),gender(male,femaleandprefernottosayorother),educationalattainment(lessthanhighschooldegree,highschoolgraduate,somecollegebutnodegree,Associatedegreeincollege(2-year),Bachelor'sdegreeincollege(4-year),Master'sdegree,Doctoraldegreeorprofessionaldegree(JD,MD))andincome($250k,prefernottosay).Otherdemographicfactorssuchashouseholdsize,residencetype,ethnicityandUSStateresidencewerealsocollected(seetheelectronicsupplementarymaterial,tableS4).(b)IdeologicalquestionnairesSixteenideologicalquestionnaireswereadministeredtoeachparticipant,asseenintable 1. Table 1.Measuresofideologicalorientations. Collapse measurescaledetails(allmeasureswereassessedona7-pointLikert-scalefrom‘stronglydisagree’to‘stronglyagree’,unlessotherwisespecified)socialconservatism[47]7-itemscale.Participantsindicatetheirwarmthtowardsasetofpolicies.Policies:abortion,traditionalmarriage,traditionalvalues,familyunit,religion,patriotism,militaryandnationalsecurity.Scaleof0-100withintervalsof10economicconservatism[47]5-itemscale.Participantsindicatetheirwarmthtowardsasetofpolicies.Policies:limitedgovernment,fiscalresponsibility,welfarebenefits,business,gunownership.Scaleof0-100withintervalsof10nationalism[52]9-itemscale.Participantsratetheiragreementwithstatementssuchas‘TheUnitedStatesisnomoresuperiorthananyothercountry’(reverse-coded)and‘Weshoulddoanythingnecessarytoincreasethepowerofourcountry,evenifitmeanswar’patriotism[53]9-itemscale.Participantsratetheiragreementwithstatementssuchas‘IfindthesightoftheAmericanflagverymoving’and‘Ihavegreatloveformycountry’authoritarianism[48]4-itemscale.Participantsindicatewhethertheybelievechildrenoughttobe‘obedient’,‘respectful’,and‘well-mannered’or‘curious’,‘independent’,and‘self-reliant’socialdominanceorientation[54]4-itemscale.Participantsratetheiragreementwithstatementssuchas‘weshouldnotpushforgroupequality’and‘superiorgroupsshoulddominateinferiorgroups’.Scaleof0-100withintervalsof10systemjustification[55]8-itemscale.Participantsarepresentedwithstatementssuchas‘Ingeneral,Americansocietyisfair’and‘Americansocietyissetupsothatpeopleusuallygetwhattheydeserve’extremepro-groupactions[56]5-itemscale.Participantsareaskedtoratetheiragreementwithstatementssuchas‘IwouldfightsomeoneinsultingormakingfunofAmericaasawhole’and‘IwouldsacrificemylifeifitsavedanotherAmerican'slife’dogmatism[57]11-itemupdatedversionofAltemeyer's[58]measureofdogmatismintellectualhumility[46]ComprehensiveIntellectualHumilityScalemeasuringfourfacetsofintellectualhumility:Factor1:independenceofintellectandegoFactor2:opennesstorevisingone'sviewpointFactor3:respectforothers’viewpointsFactor4:lackofintellectualoverconfidenceimportanceofreligion(PewResearchCentre)participantswereasked:‘Howimportantisreligioninyourlife?’Responseoptions:notatallimportant,slightlyimportant,moderatelyimportant,veryimportant,extremelyimportantreligiousprayerfrequency(PewResearchCentre)participantswereasked:‘Peoplepracticetheirreligionindifferentways.Outsideofattendingreligiousservices,howoftendoyoupray?’Responseoptions:severaltimesaday,onceaday,afewtimesaweek,onceaweek,afewtimesamonth,seldom,neverreligiousserviceattendancefrequency(PewResearchCentre)participantswereasked:‘Asidefromweddingsandfunerals,howoftendoyouattendreligiousservices?’Responseoptions:morethanonceaweek,onceaweek,onceortwiceamonth,afewtimesayear,seldom,never(c)ExploratoryfactoranalysisToreducethedimensionalityoftheideologicalorientations,exploratoryfactoranalysisusingobliminrotationwasconductedusingthe‘fa’functionfromtheRpackagepsych[59].Screeplotsandparallelanalysisbothsuggesteda3-factorstructurewasthemostappropriatereductionofthedata(seetheelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS4).Themoderatecorrelationsbetweenthethreeideologicalfactorssuggestedthattheyreflectedlargelyindependentconstructs(seetheelectronicsupplementarymaterial,tableS2).(d)Cross-validationmethodCross-validatedpredictionofideologicaloutcomeswasperformedusingridgeregressionandemployingabalanced10-foldprocedure(customcodebasedon[38,60,61];forusefulprimersee[62]).Thisanalysisdividesthesampleinto10groupsandfitsthemodelonnine-tenthsoftheparticipantsandteststhemodelontheleft-overone-tenthofthesample.Acrossallfoldseachparticipant'sideologicalcharacteristicswerepredictedinacross-validatedmanner,resultinginout-of-sampleestimatesforeachparticipant'sideologicalscores.TheR2wasthuscomputedthrough10-foldcross-validatedridgeregressionusingtheRidgeCVfunctionfromscikit-learnwithdefaultparameters.Onepotential(thoughunlikely)issuewithourpredictionanalysisisthepossibilityofdata-bleedingbetweencross-validationfoldsasaresultofthefactoranalyticmodels.Thatis,thecognitiveandpersonalityontologieswerederivedbasedonthe522personsamplecollectedbyEisenbergetal.[38].Thisdata-bleedingcouldinappropriatelyinflatepredictionestimates.Tocontrolforthispossibilitywecreatedanempiricalnulldistributionofpredictionsuccessbyshufflingtheideologicaloutcomesandrepeatingtheprediction2500times.Thetop95%ofthisshuffledpredictionsuccesswasusedasasignificancecut-off(p<0.05).3.ResultsInordertounderstandthecognitiveandpersonalitybasesoftheseideologicalorientations,wecomputedaseriesofmultipleregressionanalysesoneachofthe16measuredideologicalorientations,aswellasthethreesummativeideologicalfactors.Twolinearmultipleregressionanalyseswereconductedforeachideologicaloutcomevariable,wherebyeachanalysisconsistedofregressorsassociatedwithoneofthefollowingfeaturematrices:(i)5-factorcognitiveontology,(ii)the12-factorpersonalityontology.Weusedthestandardizedbetacoefficientsofthelinearregressionmodelstogeneratea‘cognitivesignature’and‘personalitysignature’ofeachideologicalorientation.Figure 4depictsthestandardizedestimatesofthecognitiveandpersonalityontologyscoresforeachofthethreesummativeideologicalfactors(seetheelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figuresS5–S8forthepsychologicalsignaturesofalltheideologicalorientations). Figure4.Standardizedestimatesofthecognitiveandpersonalityvariablesforeachideologicalfactor.*p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001.DownloadfigureOpeninnewtabDownloadPowerPointTheresultsrevealbothdiversityandspecificityinthepsychologicalcorrelatesofpoliticalconservatism,dogmatismandreligiosity.Thepoliticalconservatismfactor,whichreflectstendenciestowardspoliticalconservatismandnationalism,wassignificantlyassociatedwithgreatercautionandtemporaldiscountingandreducedstrategicinformationprocessinginthecognitivedomain,andbygreatergoal-directedness,impulsivity,andrewardsensitivity,andreducedsocialrisk-takinginthepersonalitydomain.Asanillustration,figure 5demonstratesthecognitivecorrelatesofalltheideologicalorientationscapturedbythepoliticalconservatismfactor,revealingthattheconservative-leaningpoliticalideologieswereconsistentlyrelatedtogreatercautiononspeededtasksandreducedstrategicinformationprocessing,withsomevariabilityintheroleoftemporaldiscounting,perceptualprocessingtimeandspeedofevidenceaccumulation.Thedogmatismfactorwassignificantlyassociatedwithreducedspeedofevidenceaccumulationinthecognitivedomainandbyreducedsocialrisk-takingandagreeablenessaswellasheightenedimpulsivityandethicalrisk-takinginthepersonalitydomain.Similarlytopoliticalconservatism,thereligiosityfactorwasalsosignificantlyassociatedwithgreatercautiononspeededtasks,andreducedstrategicinformationprocessingandsocialrisk-taking,butincontrasttodogmatismandpoliticalconservatism,religiositywasassociatedwithgreateragreeablenessandriskperception. Figure5.Standardizedestimatesofcognitivevariablesforideologicalorientationsthatloadonthepoliticalconservatismfactor.*p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001.DownloadfigureOpeninnewtabDownloadPowerPointNext,weinvestigatedtherelativerolesofdemographicvariables,self-reportedpersonalityandcognitiontoideologicalattitudes.Asevidentinfigure 6b,forthepoliticalconservatismfactor,demographicvariablesaloneexplained7.43%ofthevariance,whiledemographicsandthepsychologicalvariablestogetherexplained32.5%ofthevariance(4.4-foldincrease).Forthereligiosityfactorandthedogmatismfactor,demographicsexplained2.90%and1.53%ofthevariance,respectively,whilethecombinedmodelexplained23.35%and23.60%ofthevariance,respectively(correspondingtoan8-foldand15-foldincrease,respectively).Consequently,includingthecognitiveandpersonalityvariablesledtoaconsiderableincreaseintheexplanatorypowerofthesemodels. Figure6.(a)Bayesfactorsforthethreeideologicalfactorsforsixregressionmodelsaccordingtothemodeltype,relativetointercept-onlynullhypothesismodels(BF10).The‘best’modelsintermsofBayesfactorsareshown.EvidentialstrengthguidelinesfollowtheclassificationschemeofferedbyJeffreys[63]andadvocatedbyWetzelsetal.[64].Forclarity,thex-axisispresentedonalogarithmicscale.(b)Associationofideologicalorientationswithdemographicvariables,cognitivetaskvariables,personalitysurveyvariables,andallvariablescombined.LinearregressionR2areshownaccordingtopredictortype.Theoutcomevariablesarearrangedaccordingtothethreeideologicalfactorsderivedusingexploratoryfactoranalysis:politicalconservatism(toppanel),dogmatism(bottompanel)andreligiosity(bottompanel).DownloadfigureOpeninnewtabDownloadPowerPointTofurtherexaminetheevidentialstrengthfortherolesofdemographicvariables,self-reportedpersonalityandbehaviourallyassessedcognitiontothethreeideologicalattitudefactors,wecomputedBayesfactors,whichexpresstherelativelikelihoodoftworegressionmodelsgiventhedataandpriorexpectations.TocalculateBayesfactorsusingBayesianregression,wereliedonadefaultBayesianapproachpromotedbyWetzelsetal.[64],Rouder&Morey[65]andLiangetal.[66],andcomputationallyspecifiedintheRpackageBayesFactor[67](usingthedefaultCauchypriors).WecomputedBayesfactors,relativetothenullhypothesis(BF10),fortheregressionmodelsconsistingofthedifferentpredictortypes:(i)demographicvariables(age,gender,educationalattainmentandincome),(ii)cognitiveontology,(iii)personalityontology,(iv)thepsychologicalvariables(i.e.thecognitiveandpersonalityontologiescombined),and(v)thecombineddemographicandpsychologicalvariables.Finally,modelscontainingthe‘bestpredictors’outofthecombinedvariablesetwerebuiltusingBayesianModelAveraging,asdescribedbelow.Asevidentinfigure 6a,therewasdecisiveevidenceforallmodelsconsistingofbothcognitiveandpersonalityvariables.Thedemographics-onlyregressionmodelwassubstantiallymorelikelythananullmodelgiventhepresentdataforthepoliticalconservatismfactor(BF10=78.26)buttherewasstrongevidenceinfavourofthenullmodelforthedogmatismfactor(BF10=0.01354)andthereligiosityfactor(BF10=0.081655;figure 6a).Thissuggeststhatdemographicvariablesplayakeyroleinexplainingideologicalattitudesintherealmofpolitics,butdonotexplainreligiosityordogmatisminthecurrentdataset.TheBayesfactoranalysisfurtherillustratesthatthereissubstantialevidenceinfavouroftheroleofcognitioninreligiosity,anddecisiveevidenceinfavourofitsroleinpoliticalideology.Bycontrast,thereisanecdotalevidenceinfavourofthenullhypothesismodelrelativetoacognition-onlymodelinthecaseofdogmatism,suggestingthataddingcognitivefeaturesdoesnotprovideaddedexplanatorypowerovertheintercept-onlymodelaftertakingintoaccountadditionalmodelcomplexity.Acrossallthreeideologicalfactors,thereisdecisiveevidenceinthecurrentdatainfavouroftheroleofpersonalityvariables,aswellasformodelspredictedbybothpersonalityandcognition,andforacombinedmodelwithallthepsychologicalanddemographicvariables.Inlinewithpastresearch[5],thepersonalitysurveyontologywasmorepredictiveofideologicalattitudesthanthecognitivetaskontology(figure 6);aneffectthatwasmorepronouncedfordogmatismandreligiositythanpoliticalconservatism,highlightingtheimportanceofbothmeasurementtypes.Additionally,toevaluatethestrengthoftheevidenceforthepsychologicalmodels(containingcognitiveandpersonalityregressors)relativetoamodelbasedsolelyondemographicvariables,wealsocomputedBayesfactorsforalltheregressionmodelsrelativetothedemographic-onlymodel(BF1D;seeelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS9).ThiscorroboratedthefindingsobtainedusingtheBF10,asthedatawasextremelymorelikelytooccurundermodelscontainingonlycognitiveandpersonalityvariablesthanademographics-onlymodel(politicalconservatismfactor:BF1D=1.975×108;dogmatismfactor:BF1D=5.248×107;religiosityfactor:BF1D=3.345×105).Toassessthepredictivepowerofthesevariables,weperformedanout-of-samplepredictionusing10-foldcross-validationwithL2-regularizedlinearregressiontopredictparticipants'ideologicalorientationsandideologicalfactorscoresusingthecognitiveandpersonalityontologies.Thiscontrastswithnormalin-samplelinearregression,whichinvolvesidenticalmodelsbutwhicharefitonthewholedatasetandthenfittothesamedataset,ratherthantoadifferentdatasetorasubsetofthedata.Conductingout-of-samplecross-validationthushelpsavoidproblemsofoverfittingandisamoregenuinemeasurementof‘prediction’thanstandardregressionmethods(e.g.[68]).Asevidentinelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS10,thecross-validatedfindingswereconsistentwiththein-samplelinearmultipleregressionfindings;thecognitiveandpersonalityontologiesweresignificantlypredictiveofparticipants'ideologicalattitudes.Wefurthersoughttoidentifythe‘best’modelforeachofthethreeideologicalfactorsusingaBayesianModelAveragingapproach(implementedinthebic.glmfunctioninthebmaRpackage[69])forallpossiblelinearadditivemodelsusingthecognitivetaskvariables,personalitysurveyvariablesanddemographicvariables(age,gender,educationalattainmentandincome)asregressors.Thebic.glmfunctionfitsgeneralizedlinearmodelswiththe‘leapsandbounds’algorithmandtheBICapproximationtoBayesfactors[69].InBayesianModelAveraging,inferenceabouteachvariableisbasedontheaveragingofposteriordistributionsofallconsideredmodels—ratherthanasingleselectedmodel—giventhepresentdata(seetheelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS11forallincludedmodelsintheBayesianModelAveraging).WeusedaGaussianerrordistributionanddefinedselectedvariablesashavingaposteriorprobabilityabove75%inlinewithpastguidelines[63,70].Foreachofthethreeideologicalfactors,wethenobtainedtheBayesfactorsfortheregressionmodelcomposedoftheseselectedvariables.ThisapproachexcludesunnecessarypredictorsandallowsustogeneratetheBayesianregressionthatexhibitsthebestcombinationoffitandparsimony.Asdepictedinfigures 6and7,eachideologicalfactorwasbestpredictedbyadifferentsetofvariables,allofwhichwereconsistentwiththeresultsofthestandardizedestimatesfromthemultiplelinearregression(figure 4).These‘best’modelsallpossessedthehighestlevelofevidentialstrengthrelativetoanintercept-onlynullmodel(BF10)andrelativetoademographics-only(BF1D)model(PoliticalConservatism:BF10=1.428×1013,BF1D=1.825×1011;Dogmatism:BF10=1.877×109,BF1D=1.386×1011;Religiosity:BF10=1.049×108,BF1D=1.285×109). Figure7.Posteriorprobabilitythateachvariable(βi)isnon-zerogiventhedata,D,(in%)followingBayesianModelAveragingoneachofthethreeideologicalfactors.Selectedvariablesforthe‘best’Bayesianregressionpossessedaposteriorprobabilityabove75%(reddottedline).Variablesaredividedaccordingtomeasurementtype:topfivevariablesrepresentthecognitivetaskontology,thenext12variablesrepresentthepersonalitysurveyontologyandthelastfourvariablesrepresentthedemographicvariables.AllvariableswereincludedinasimultaneousregressionforBayesianModelAveraging.DownloadfigureOpeninnewtabDownloadPowerPoint4.DiscussionWhilethefieldofpoliticalpsychologyhasexpandedandflourishedoverthepasttwodecades,tothebestofourknowledgetherehasbeennodata-drivenandwell-poweredanalysisofthecontributionofalargesetofpsychologicaltraitstoawidearrayofideologicalbeliefs.Byadministeringanunprecedentednumberofcognitivetasksandpersonalitysurveysandemployingadata-drivenmentalontology[37,38],wewereabletoevaluatetherelationshipsbetweenindividuals'cognitionandpersonalityandtheirideologicalinclinations.Thisdata-drivenapproachrevealedstrikingparallelsbetweenindividuals’low-levelcognitivedispositionsandtheirhigh-levelpolitical,socialanddogmaticattitudes.Theexaminationofarangeofideologicalattitudespertainingtopolitics,nationalism,religionanddogmatismexposedremarkablesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthepsychologicalcorrelatesofdiverseideologicalorientations,demonstratingthattheremaybecorepsychologicalunderpinningsofideologicalthinkingacrossdomains(suchastheconsistentrolesofstrategicinformationprocessingandsocialrisk-taking;figures 4,5and7,andelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figuresS5–S8)aswellasspecificitythatdependsonthecontentoftheideologicaldomain(suchasthedifferingcontributionsofcaution,evidenceaccumulationrate,impulsivityandagreeableness).Bayesiananalysishighlightedthatthemostparsimoniousandpredictivemodelsofpoliticalconservatismincludebothbehaviourallyassessedcognitivevariablesandself-reportedpersonalityvariables(figures 4,6and7),suggestingthatbothmeasurementtypesarevaluableforpredictingideologicalbehaviourandshouldbetreatedascomplementarysourcesofexplainedvariance.Dogmaticparticipantswereslowertoaccumulateevidenceinspeededdecision-makingtasksbutwerealsomoreimpulsiveandwillingtotakeethicalrisks(figure 4andelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS6).Thiscombinationoftraits—impulsivityinconjunctionwithslowandimpairedaccumulationofevidencefromthedecisionenvironment—mayresultinthedogmatictendencytodiscardevidenceprematurelyandtoresistbeliefupdatinginlightofnewinformation.Thispsychologicalsignatureisnovelandshouldinspirefurtherresearchontheeffectofdogmatismonperceptualdecision-makingprocesses.Itisnoteworthythatimpulsivitydiffersherefromcaution(implicatedinpoliticalconservatismandreligiosity)intermsofmeasurementmethod(self-reportsurveyversusbehaviouraltask)anditsrelationshiptoself-control:cautionhereisoperationalizedasatrade-offbetweenspeedandaccuracyunderconditionswherebothareemphasizedandsoisundertheinfluenceofsomestrategiccontrol,whereasimpulsivitycanbeconceptualizedasadeficitininhibitorycontrolratherthanastrategictrade-off[71].Consequently,dogmaticindividualsmaypossessreducedinhibitionthatcouldbecompoundedbyslowerinformationuptake,leadingtoimpulsivedecisionsbasedonimperfectlyprocessedevidence.Therehasbeenremarkablylittlecontemporaryresearchonthecognitivebasisofdogmatism,withafewexceptions[17–19,72,73],andsowehopethesefindingswillstimulatefurtherin-depthresearchontheperceptualunderpinningsofdogmaticthinkingstyles.Politicalconservatismwasbestexplainedbyreducedstrategicinformationprocessing,heightenedresponsecautioninperceptualdecision-makingparadigms,andanaversiontosocialrisk-taking(figures 4,5and7).Thesethreepredictorswereconsistentlyimplicatedinthegeneralpoliticalconservatismfactor(figure 4),aswellasthespecificpolitical-ideologicalorientationsstudied,suchasnationalism,authoritarianismandsocialconservatism(figure 5andelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS5).Thesedata-drivenfindingsareremarkablycongruentwithexistingtheoreticalandempiricalaccountswithinpoliticalpsychologyandalsoaddimportantinsights.Firstly,thefindingthatpoliticalandnationalisticconservatismisassociatedwithreducedstrategicinformationprocessing(reflectingvariablesassociatedwithworkingmemorycapacity,planning,cognitiveflexibilityandotherhigher-orderstrategies)isconsistentwithalargebodyofliterature[2,5]indicatingthatright-wingideologiesarefrequentlyassociatedwithreducedanalyticalthinking[74,75]andcognitiveflexibility[6,15,17].Additionally,conservativepoliticalideologywascharacterizedbyadiminishedtendencytotakesocialrisks(figure 4andelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS4)suchasdisagreeingwithauthority,startinganewcareermid-lifeandspeakingpubliclyaboutacontroversialtopic.Thiscorroboratesresearchshowingthatpoliticalconservativestendtoemphasizevaluesofconformity,ingrouployaltyandtraditionalism[76–80].Theseempiricalconsistenciesbetweenthecurrentdata-drivenfindingsandpasttheory-motivatedresearchendowthepresentlineofworkwithfurthercredibility.Apoliticallyconservativeoutlookwasassociatedwithgreatercautioninideologicallyneutralspeededdecision-makingtasks,asoperationalizedintermsoftheDDMparameterfortheamountofevidencerequiredbeforecommittingtoadecision.Specifically,thecautionwithwhichindividualsprocessandrespondtopoliticallyneutralinformationwasrelatedtotheconservatismwithwhichtheyevaluatesocio-politicalinformation(figures 4and5).It,therefore,appearsthatcautionmaybeatime-scaleindependentdecisionstrategy:individualswhoarepoliticallyconservativemaybeperceptuallycautiousaswell.Thisfindingsupportstheideaof‘electiveaffinities’[1]betweencognitivedispositionsandideologicalinclinationsandiscompatiblewiththeperspectivethatpoliticalconservatismisassociatedwithheightenedmotivationstosatisfydispositionalneedsforcertaintyandsecurity[2,3,81,82].Nonetheless,tothebestofourknowledge,ideologicalattitudeshaveneverbeforebeeninvestigatedinrelationtocautionasmeasuredwithcognitivetasksanddrift-diffusionparameters.Thepresentresults,therefore,offeranoveladditiontothisliteraturebysuggestingthatpoliticalconservatismmaybeamanifestationofacautiousstrategyinprocessingandrespondingtoinformationthatisbothtime-invariantandideologicallyneutral,andcanbemanifesteveninrapidperceptualdecision-makingprocesses.Thisisrelevanttothewealthofnovelresearchontheroleofuncertaintyintheneuralunderpinningsofpoliticalprocesses[26,27,31,83].Thefindingsrevealfurtherunexploreddynamicsbyhighlightingthatideologicalorientationswhichhavebeenwidelystudiedanddebatedinpoliticalpsychologyexhibitbothuniformityandvariabilityintheircognitiveandpersonalitypredictors.Forexample,althoughsocialandeconomicconservatismpossessedmanyoverlappingcorrelates(suchasheightenedgoal-directednessandcaution;figure 5andelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS5),economicconservatismwasassociatedwithenhancedsensation-seeking,whereassocialconservatismwasnot,andinturn,socialconservatismwasrelatedtoheightenedagreeablenessandriskperception,whileeconomicconservatismwasnot(electronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS5).Thisbearsonrecentdebatesregardingtheneedtofractionateconservatismintoitssocialandeconomiccomponentsinordertoeffectivelyandcomprehensivelyunderstanditspsychologicalunderpinnings[17,43,84–87],andhighlightssensation-seekingandriskperceptionaspotentialcandidatesforfuturestudy.Theresultscanalsohelptodisambiguatepastdebatesabouttheconceptualoverlapsbetweenideologicalorientationssuchassocialdominanceorientation,systemjustificationandauthoritarianism[44]andtheirdifferentialpredictivepowerinrelationtoreal-worldoutcomessuchasprejudice[88–90]andpolicyattitudes[91].Here,wefoundthateachoftheseideologiesexhibitedadifferentcognitiveandpersonalitysignature.Thepsychologicalsignatureofreligiosityconsistedofheightenedcautionandreducedstrategicinformationprocessinginthecognitivedomain(similarlytoconservatism),andenhancedagreeableness,riskperceptionandaversiontosocialrisk-taking,inthepersonalitydomain(figure 4andelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS6).Thefindingthatreligiousparticipantsexhibitedelevatedcautionandriskperceptionisparticularlyinformativetoresearchersinvestigatingthetheorythatthreat,riskanddisgustsensitivityarelinkedtomoralandreligiousconvictions[92–97],andthatthesecognitiveandemotionalbiasesmayhaveplayedaroleintheculturaloriginsoflarge-scaleorganizedreligions[98,99].Theresultssupportthenotionthatexperiencingrisksasmoresalientandprobablemayfacilitatedevotiontoreligiousideologiesthatofferexplanationsoftheserisks(bysupernaturalaccounts)andwaystomitigatethem(viareligiousdevotionandcommunities).Thepresentdata-drivenanalysisrevealsthewaysinwhichperceptualdecision-makingstrategiescanpercolateintohigh-levelideologicalbeliefs,suggestingthatadissectionofthecognitiveanatomyofideologiesisaproductiveandilluminatingendeavour.Itelucidatesboththecognitivevulnerabilitiestotoxicideologiesaswellasthetraitsthatmakeindividualsmoreintellectuallyhumble,receptivetoevidenceandultimatelyresilienttoextremistrhetoric.Interestingly,thepsychologicalprofileofindividualswhoendorsedextremepro-groupactions,suchasideologicallymotivatedviolenceagainstoutgroups,wasamixofthepoliticalconservatismsignatureandthedogmatismsignature(figure 5andelectronicsupplementarymaterial,figureS5).Thismayofferkeyinsightsfornuancededucationalprogrammesaimedatfosteringhumilityandsocialunderstanding[100].Byadoptingresearchpracticessuchasrelyingoncomprehensivemeasurementapproaches,integratingassessmentmethodsfromcognitiveandsocialpsychology,usingbothfrequentistandBayesiananalytictechniques,andtemporallyseparatingthecollectionofpsychologicalandideologicaldata,thecurrentinvestigationwasabletoovercomemanymethodologicalconcernsinsocialandpoliticalpsychologyregardingbiasedhypothesisgenerationandreproducibility[8].Theconvergencebetweenthesedata-drivenresultsandpasttheory-drivenresearchhelpstovalidateexistingfindingsandtohighlightthedegreetowhichhumanideologicalinclinationsarerootedincognitivedispositions.Moreover,thisdata-drivenapproachgeneratednotablenovelinsightsthatwillhelpguidefutureresearch,suchastheroleofevidenceaccumulationratesandimpulsivityindogmatism,orthemanifestrelationshipbetweenpoliticalconservatismandcognitivecautioninspeededperceptualdecisions(figures 4and5).Thesefindingsunderscorethefruitfulnessofexaminingtherelationshipsbetweenhigh-levelideologicalattitudesandlow-levelcognitiveprocesses,andsuggestthatideologicalbeliefsareamenabletocarefulcognitiveandcomputationalanalysis[20,101].Additionally,theresultssupportpredictivemodelsofideologicalorientationsthatincorporatecognitiveandpersonalityfactors(figures 4,6and7),carvingthewayformoreinterdisciplinarydialogueintermsofpsychologicalmethodology.Futurecumulativeresearchwillneedtoelucidatethequestionofcausalityandtranslatethesefindingstomorediverseandrepresentativesamples[102]thataddresstheroleofcontextintheserelationships[103,104].Recentaccountssuggestthatnotonlydopsychologicalprocessesunderlieideologicalattitudes,attitudesalsoguidebehaviouranddecision-makingacrossdomainsinwaysthatcanshapeperception,cognitionandpersonality[6,33,105].Awholistic,domain-generalapproachtotherelationshipbetweenideologyandcognitioncan,therefore,offeravaluablefoundationforresearchonthepsychologicalrootsofintergroupattitudes,xenophobiaandideologicalextremism—illustratingthemyriadwaysinwhichsubtlevariationsinmentalprocessescanpredisposeindividualstoideologicalworldviews.EthicsThestudyreceivedethicalapprovalfromStanfordUniversity(Protocolno.46266).DataaccessibilityAlldata,codeandmaterialsusedintheanalysisareavailablethroughthefollowinglinksorwillbemadeavailableontheOpenScienceFrameworkpriortopublication:https://github.com/IanEisenberg/Self_Regulation_Ontology;https://ianeisenberg.github.io/Self_Regulation_Ontology/supplement_figures.html;https://ianeisenberg.github.io/Self_Regulation_Ontology/cleaning_visualization.html.AuthorcontributionsConceptualization:L.Z.,I.W.E.,P.G.B.,T.W.R.,R.A.P.;methodology:L.Z.,I.W.E.,P.G.B.,R.A.P.;datacollection:L.Z.;dataanalysis:L.Z.,I.W.E.,R.A.P;resources:T.W.R.,R.A.P.;writing:L.Z.;visualization:L.Z.,I.W.E.;supervision:T.W.R.,R.A.P.;fundingacquisition:R.A.P.CompetinginterestsTheauthorsdeclarenocompetinginterests.FundingThisworkwassupportedbytheNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH)ScienceofBehaviourChangeCommonFundProgramthroughanawardadministeredbytheNationalInstituteforDrugAbuse(NIDA)(UH2DA041713;PIs:Marsch,LAandR.A.P.).L.Z.wassupportedbytheGatesCambridgeTrustScholarship,JohnMaplesAmericaFundScholarshipbyDowningCollege,UniversityofCambridgeandResearchFieldworkAwardbytheDepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCambridge.FootnotesOnecontributionof18toathemeissue‘Thepoliticalbrain:neurocognitiveandcomputationalmechanisms’.Electronicsupplementarymaterialisavailableonlineathttps://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5252445.©2021TheAuthors.PublishedbytheRoyalSocietyunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/,whichpermitsunrestricteduse,providedtheoriginalauthorandsourcearecredited.References1.JostJT,FedericoCM,NapierJL.2009Politicalideology:itsstructure,functions,andelectiveaffinities.Ann.Rev.Psychol.60,307-337.(doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar2.JostJT.2017Ideologicalasymmetriesandtheessenceofpoliticalpsychology.PoliticalPsychol.38,167-208.(doi:10.1111/pops.12407)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar3.ChirumboloA.2002Therelationshipbetweenneedforcognitiveclosureandpoliticalorientation:themediatingroleofauthoritarianism.Pers.Individ.Differ.32,603-610.(doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00062-9)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar4.MondakJJ.2010Personalityandthefoundationsofpoliticalbehaviour.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.Crossref, GoogleScholar5.VanHielA,OnraetE,CrowsonHM,RoetsA.2016Therelationshipbetweenright-wingattitudesandcognitivestyle:acomparisonofself-reportandbehaviouralmeasuresofrigidityandintoleranceofambiguity.Eur.J.Pers.30,523-531.(doi:10.1002/per.2082)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar6.ZmigrodL.2020Theroleofcognitiverigidityinpoliticalideologies:theory,evidence,andfuturedirections.Curr.Top.Behav.Sci.34,34-39.(doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.016)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar7.ClarkCJ,WinegardBM.2020Tribalisminwarandpeace:thenatureandevolutionofideologicalepistemologyanditssignificanceformodernsocialscience.Psychol.Inquiry31,1-22.Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar8.DuarteJL,CrawfordJT,SternC,HaidtJ,JussimL,TetlockPE.2015Politicaldiversitywillimprovesocialpsychologicalscience.Behav.BrainSci.38,e130.(doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar9.HaasIJ.2020Ideologicalasymmetriesinsocialpsychologicalresearch:rethinkingtheimpactofpoliticalcontextonideologicalepistemology.Psychol.Inquiry31,29-34.Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar10.MalkaA,LelkesY,HolzerN.2017Rethinkingtherigidityoftherightmodel:threesuboptimalmethodologicalpracticesandtheirimplications.InFrontiersofSocialPsychology:PoliticsofSocialPsychology(edsCrawfordJT,JussimL),pp.116-135.NewYork,NY:PsychologyPress.Crossref, GoogleScholar11.TetlockPE.1994Politicalpsychologyorpoliticizedpsychology:istheroadtoscientifichellpavedwithgoodmoralintentions?PoliticalPsychol.15,509-529.(doi:10.2307/3791569)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar12.WashburnAN,SkitkaL.2018Strategiesforpromotingstronginferencesinpoliticalpsychologyresearch.Seehttps://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/c4wv5(2018,April7).GoogleScholar13.AdornoTW,Frenkel-BrunswikE,LevinsonDJ,SanfordRN.1950Theauthoritarianpersonality.NewYork,NY:Harper&Brothers.GoogleScholar14.ZmigrodL,RentfrowPJ,RobbinsTW.2018CognitiveunderpinningsofnationalisticideologyinthecontextofBrexit.Proc.NatlAcad.Sci.USA115,E4532-E4540.(doi:10.1073/pnas.1708960115)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar15.ZmigrodL,RentfrowPJ,ZmigrodS,RobbinsTW.2018Cognitiveflexibilityandreligiousdisbelief.Psychol.Res.83,1749-1759.(doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1034-3)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar16.ZmigrodL,RentfrowPJ,RobbinsTW.2019Cognitiveinflexibilitypredictsextremistattitudes.Front.Psychol.10,1-13.(doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00989)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar17.ZmigrodL,RentfrowPJ,RobbinsTW.2020Thepartisanmind:isextremepoliticalpartisanshiprelatedtocognitiveinflexibility?J.Exp.Psychol.Gen.149,407-418.(doi:10.1037/xge0000661)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar18.ZmigrodL,ZmigrodS,RentfrowPJ,RobbinsTW.2019Thepsychologicalrootsofintellectualhumility:theroleofintelligenceandcognitiveflexibility.Pers.Individ.Differ.141,200-208.(doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.016)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar19.RollwageM,DolanRJ,FlemingSM.2018Metacognitivefailureasafeatureofthoseholdingradicalbeliefs.Curr.Biol.28,4014-4021.(doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar20.RollwageM,ZmigrodL,de-WitL,DolanRJ,FlemingSM.2019Whatunderliespoliticalpolarization?Amanifestoforcomputationalpoliticalpsychology.TrendsCogn.Sci.23,820-822.(doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.006)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar21.CarraroL,CastelliL,MacchiellaC.2011Theautomaticconservative:ideology-basedattentionalasymmetriesintheprocessingofvalencedinformation.PLoSONE6,e26456.(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026456)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar22.HibbingJR,SmithKB,AlfordJR.2014Differencesinnegativitybiasunderlievariationsinpoliticalideology.Behav.BrainSci.37,297-307.(doi:10.1017/S0140525X13001192)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar23.OxleyDR,SmithKB,AlfordJR,HibbingMV,MillerJL,ScaloraM,HatemiPK,HibbingJR.2008Politicalattitudesvarywithphysiologicaltraits.Science321,1667-1670.(doi:10.1126/science.1157627)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar24.VigilJM.2010Politicalleaningsvarywithfacialexpressionprocessingandpsychosocialfunctioning.GroupProcessIntergr.Relat.13,547-558.(doi:10.1177/1368430209356930)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar25.JostJT,NamHH,AmodioDM,VanBavelJJ.2014Politicalneuroscience:thebeginningofabeautifulfriendship.PoliticalPsychol.35,3-42.(doi:10.1111/pops.12162)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar26.HaasIJ,BakerMN,GonzalezFJ.2021Politicaluncertaintymoderatesneuralevaluationofincongruentpolicypositions.Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B376,20200138.(doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0138)Link,ISI, GoogleScholar27.KroschAR,JostJT,VanBavelJJ.2021Theneuralbasisofideologicaldifferencesinracecategorization.Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B376,20200139.(doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0139)Link,ISI, GoogleScholar28.LeongYC,ChenJ,WillerR,ZakiJ.2020Conservativeandliberalattitudesdrivepolarizedneuralresponsestopoliticalcontent.Proc.NatlAcad.Sci.USA117,27731.(doi:10.1073/pnas.2008530117)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar29.NamHH.2020Neuroscientificapproachestothestudyofsystemjustification.Curr.Opin.Behav.Sci.34,205-210.Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar30.NamHH,JostJT,KaggenL,Campbell-MeiklejohnD,VanBavelJJ.2018Amygdalastructureandthetendencytoregardthesocialsystemaslegitimateanddesirable.Nat.Hum.Behav.2,133-138.(doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0248-5)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar31.NamHH,JostJT,MeagerMR,VanBavelJJ.2021Towardaneuropsychologyofpoliticalorientation:exploringideologyinpatientswithfrontalandmidbrainlesions.Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B376,20200137.(doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0137)Link,ISI, GoogleScholar32.TsakirisM,VeharN,TucciarelliR.2021Visceralpolitics:atheoreticalandempiricalproofofconcept.Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B376,20200142.(doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0142)Link,ISI, GoogleScholar33.ZmigrodL.2020Apsychologyofideology:unpackingthepsychologicalstructureofideologicalthinking.(doi:10.31234/osf.io/ewy9t)GoogleScholar34.GreenbergJ,JonasE.2003Psychologicalmotivesandpoliticalorientation–theleft,theright,andtherigid:commentonJostetal.(2003).Psychol.Bull.129,376-382.(doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar35.RokeachM.1948Generalizedmentalrigidityasafactorinethnocentrism.J.Abnorm.Soc.Psychol.43,259-278.(doi:10.1037/h0056134)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar36.RokeachM.1954Thenatureandmeaningofdogmatism.Psychol.Rev.61,194-204.(doi:10.1037/h0060752)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar37.EisenbergIWetal.2018Applyingnoveltechnologiesandmethodstoinformtheontologyofself-regulation.Behav.Res.Ther.101,46-57.(doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.09.014)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar38.EisenbergIW,BissettPG,ZeynepEnkaviA,LiJ,MacKinnonDP,MarschLA,PoldrackRA.2019Uncoveringmentalstructurethroughdata-drivenontologydiscovery.Nat.Commun.10,2319.(doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10301-1)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar39.EnkaviAZ,EisenbergIW,BissettPG,MazzaGL,MacKinnonDP,MarschLA,PoldrackRA.2019Large-scaleanalysisoftest−retestreliabilitiesofself-regulationmeasures.Proc.NatlAcad.Sci.USA116,5472-5477.(doi:10.1073/pnas.1818430116)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar40.HedgeC,PowellG,SumnerP.2018Thereliabilityparadox:whyrobustcognitivetasksdonotproducereliableindividualdifferences.Behav.Res.Methods50,1166-1186.(doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar41.SaundersB,MilyavskayaM,EtzA,RandlesD,InzlichtM.2018Reportedself-controlisnotmeaningfullyassociatedwithinhibition-relatedexecutivefunction:aBayesiananalysis.Collabra:Psychol.4,39.(doi:10.1525/collabra.134)Crossref, GoogleScholar42.DeKeersmaeckerJ,OnraetE,LepouttreN,RoetsA.2017Theoppositeeffectsofactualandself-perceivedintelligenceonracialprejudice.Pers.Individ.Differ.112,136-138.(doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.057)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar43.ZmigrodL.2019Thecognitiveunderpinningsofideologicalthinking.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UK.GoogleScholar44.SibleyCG,DuckittJ.2008Personalityandprejudice:ameta-analysisandtheoreticalreview.Pers.Soc.Psychol.Rev.12,248-279.(doi:10.1177/1088868308319226)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar45.JostJT.2018Aquartercenturyofsystemjustificationtheory:questions,answers,criticisms,andsocietalapplications.Br.J.Soc.Psychol.58,263-314.(doi:10.1111/bjso.12297)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar46.Krumrei-MancusoEJ,RouseSV.2016Thedevelopmentandvalidationofthecomprehensiveintellectualhumilityscale.J.Pers.Assess.98,209-221.(doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1068174)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar47.EverettJA.2013The12-itemsocialandeconomicconservatismscale(SECS).PLoSONE8,e82131.(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082131)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar48.HetheringtonMJ,WeilerJD.2009AuthoritarianismandpolarizationinAmericanpolitics.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.Crossref, GoogleScholar49.MavorKI,MacleodCJ,BoalMJ,LouisWR.2009Right-wingauthoritarianism,fundamentalismandprejudicerevisited:removingsuppressionandstatisticalartefact.Pers.Individ.Differ.46,592-597.(doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.016)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar50.MavorKI,LouisWR,LaytheB.2011Religion,prejudice,andauthoritarianism:isRWAaboonorbanetothepsychologyofreligion?J.Sci.StudyRelig.50,22-43.(doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01550.x)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar51.StennerK.2005Theauthoritariandynamic.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.Crossref, GoogleScholar52.SidaniusJ,FeshbachS,LevinS,PrattoF.1997Theinterfacebetweenethnicandnationalattachment:ethnicpluralismorethnicdominance?PublicOpin.Q.61,102-133.Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar53.FedericoCM,GolecA,DialJL.2005TherelationshipbetweentheneedforclosureandsupportformilitaryactionagainstIraq:moderatingeffectsofnationalattachment.Pers.SocialPsychol.Bull.31,621-632.Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar54.PrattoF,CidamA,StewartAL,ZeineddineFB,ArandaM,AielloA,HenkelKE.2013Socialdominanceincontextandinindividuals:contextualmoderationofrobusteffectsofsocialdominanceorientationin15languagesand20countries.SocialPsychol.Pers.Sci.4,587-599.Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar55.KayAC,JostJT.2003Complementaryjustice:effectsof“poorbuthappy”and“poorbuthonest”stereotypeexemplarsonsystemjustificationandimplicitactivationofthejusticemotive.J.Pers.SocialPsychol.85,823.Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar56.SwannWB,GómezA,SeyleDC,MoralesJ,HuiciC.2009Identityfusion:theinterplayofpersonalandsocialidentitiesinextremegroupbehavior.J.Pers.SocialPsychol.96,995.Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar57.ShearmanSM,LevineTR.2006Dogmatismupdated:ascalerevisionandvalidation.Comm.Q.54,275-291.Crossref, GoogleScholar58.AltemeyerB.2002Dogmaticbehavioramongstudents:testinganewmeasureofdogmatism.J.SocialPsychol.142,713-721.Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar59.RevelleW.2014Psych:proceduresforpsychological,psychometric,andpersonalityresearch.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversity.GoogleScholar60.KohaviR.1995Astudyofcross-validationandbootstrapforaccuracyestimationandmodelselection.InInternationalJointConferenceonArtificialIntelligence,vol.14,pp.1137-1145.GoogleScholar61.PedregosaFetal.2011Scikit-learn:machinelearninginPython.J.Mach.Learn.Res.12,2825-2830.ISI, GoogleScholar62.JiangT,GradusJL,RoselliniAJ.2020Supervisedmachinelearning:abriefprimer.Behav.Ther.51,675-687.(doi:10.1016/j.beth.2020.05.002)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar63.JeffreysH.1961Theoryofprobability.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.GoogleScholar64.WetzelsR,MatzkeD,LeeMD,RouderJN,IversonGJ,WagenmakersE-J.2011Statisticalevidenceinexperimentalpsychology:anempiricalcomparisonusing855ttests.Persp.Psychol.Sci.6,291-298.(doi:10.1177/1745691611406923)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar65.RouderJN,MoreyRD.2012DefaultBayesfactorsformodelselectioninregression.Multivar.Behav.Res.47,877-903.(doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.734737)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar66.LiangF,PauloR,MolinaG,ClydeMA,BergerJO.2008MixturesofgpriorsforBayesianvariableselection.J.Am.Stat.Assoc.103,410-423.(doi:10.1198/016214507000001337)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar67.MoreyRD,RouderJN,JamilT.2015BayesFactor:ComputationofBayesfactorsforcommondesigns.Rpackageversion0.9,9.GoogleScholar68.PoldrackRA,HuckinsG,VaroquauxG.2020Establishmentofbestpracticesforevidenceforprediction:areview.JAMAPsychiatry77,534-540.(doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3671)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar69.RafteryAE,PainterIS.2005BMA:anRpackageforBayesianmodelaveraging.TheNewsletteroftheRProject,Volume5,2.GoogleScholar70.ViallefontV,RafteryAE,RichardsonS.2001VariableselectionandBayesianmodelaveragingincase-controlstudies.Stat.Med.20,3215-3230.(doi:10.1002/sim.976)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar71.DalleyJW,EverittBJ,RobbinsTW.2011Impulsivity,compulsivity,andtop-downcognitivecontrol.Neuron69,680-694.(doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.020)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar72.BrownAM.2007Acognitiveapproachtodogmatism:aninvestigationintotherelationshipofverbalworkingmemoryanddogmatism.J.Res.Pers.41,946-952.(doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.10.001)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar73.DefflerSA,LearyMR,HoyleRH.2016Knowingwhatyouknow:intellectualhumilityandjudgmentsofrecognitionmemory.Pers.Individ.Differ.96,255-259.(doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.016)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar74.HodsonG,BusseriMA.2012Brightmindsanddarkattitudes:lowercognitiveabilitypredictsgreaterprejudicethroughright-wingideologyandlowintergroupcontact.Psychol.Sci.23,187-195.(doi:10.1177/0956797611421206)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar75.OnraetE,VanHielA,DhontK,HodsonG,SchittekatteM,DePauwS.2015Theassociationofcognitiveabilitywithright-wingideologicalattitudesandprejudice:ameta-analyticreview.Eur.J.Pers.29,599-621.(doi:10.1002/per.2027)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar76.CapraraGV,SchwartzS,CapannaC,VecchioneM,BarbaranelliC.2006Personalityandpolitics:values,traits,andpoliticalchoice.PoliticalPsychol.27,1-28.(doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar77.CavazzaN,Mucchi-FainaA.2008Me,us,orthem:whoismoreconformist?Perceptionofconformityandpoliticalorientation.J.Soc.Psychol.148,335-346.(doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.3.335-346)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar78.FeldmanS.2013Values,ideology,andthestructureofpoliticalattitudes.InOxfordhandbookofpoliticalpsychology(edsSearsDO,HuddyL,JervisR),pp.477-508.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.GoogleScholar79.JostJT,BasevichE,DicksonES,NoorbaloochiS.2016Theplaceofvaluesinaworldofpolitics:Personality,motivation,andideology.InHandbookofvalue:perspectivesfromeconomics,neuroscience,philosophy,psychology,andsociology(edsBroschT,SanderD,ClementF,DeonnaJA,FehrE,VuilleumierP),pp.351-374.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.GoogleScholar80.PiurkoY,SchwartzSH,DavidovE.2011Basicpersonalvaluesandthemeaningofleft-rightpoliticalorientationsin20countries.PoliticalPsychol.32,537-561.(doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00828.x)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar81.JostJT,GlaserJ,KruglanskiAW,SullowayFJ.2003Politicalconservatismasmotivatedsocialcognition.Psychol.Bull.129,339-375.(doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar82.JostJT,NosekBA,GoslingSD.2008Ideology:itsresurgenceinsocial,personality,andpoliticalpsychology.Persp.Psychol.Sci.3,126-136.(doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar83.vanBaarJM,HalpernDJ,FeldmanHallO.2020Intolerancetouncertaintymodulatesneuralsynchronybetweenpoliticalpartisans.Seehttps://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.28.358051.GoogleScholar84.AzevedoF,JostJT,RothmundT,SterlingJ.2019Neoliberalideologyandthejustificationofinequalityincapitalistsocieties:whysocialandeconomicdimensionsofideologyareintertwined.J.Soc.Issues75,49-88.(doi:10.1111/josi.12310)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar85.CrawfordJT,BrandtMJ,InbarY,ChambersJR,MotylM.2017Socialandeconomicideologiesdifferentiallypredictprejudiceacrossthepoliticalspectrum,butsocialissuesaremostdivisive.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.112,383-412.(doi:10.1037/pspa0000074)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar86.GerberAS,HuberGA,DohertyD,DowlingCM,HaSE.2010Personalityandpoliticalattitudes:relationshipsacrossissuedomainsandpoliticalcontexts.Am.PoliticalSci.Rev.104,111-133.(doi:10.1017/S0003055410000031)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar87.MalkaA,LelkesY,SotoCJ.2017Areculturalandeconomicconservatismpositivelycorrelated?Alarge-scalecross-nationaltest.Br.J.PoliticalSci.49,1-25.(doi:10.1017/S0007123417000072)ISI, GoogleScholar88.McFarlandS.2010Authoritarianism,socialdominance,andotherrootsofgeneralizedprejudice.PoliticalPsychol.31,453-477.(doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar89.BrandtMJ,CrawfordJT.2016Answeringunresolvedquestionsabouttherelationshipbetweencognitiveabilityandprejudice.Soc.Psychol.Pers.Sci.7,884-892.(doi:10.1177/1948550616660592)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar90.CohrsJC,AsbrockF.2009Right-wingauthoritarianism,socialdominanceorientationandprejudiceagainstthreateningandcompetitiveethnicgroups.Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.39,270-289.(doi:10.1002/ejsp.545)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar91.JylhäKM,AkramiN.2015Socialdominanceorientationandclimatechangedenial:theroleofdominanceandsystemjustification.Pers.Individ.Differ.86,108-111.(doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.041)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar92.CollettJL,LizardoO.2009Apower-controltheoryofgenderandreligiosity.J.Sci.StudyRel.48,213-231.(doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01441.x)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar93.FincherCL,ThornhillR.2008Assortativesociality,limiteddispersal,infectiousdiseaseandthegenesisoftheglobalpatternofreligiondiversity.Proc.R.Soc.B275,2587-2594.(doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0688)Link,ISI, GoogleScholar94.FincherCL,ThornhillR.2012Parasite-stresspromotesin-groupassortativesociality:thecasesofstrongfamilytiesandheightenedreligiosity.Behav.BrainSci.35,61-79.(doi:10.1017/S0140525X11000021)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar95.MillerAS,HoffmannJP.1995Riskandreligion:anexplanationofgenderdifferencesinreligiosity.J.Sci.Stud.Rel.34,63-75.(doi:10.2307/1386523)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar96.MillerAS,StarkR.2002Genderandreligiousness:cansocializationexplanationsbesaved?1.Am.J.Sociol.107,1399-1423.(doi:10.1086/342557)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar97.MurrayDR,KerryN,GervaisWM.2019Ondiseaseanddeontology:multipletestsoftheinfluenceofdiseasethreatonmoralvigilance.Soc.Psychol.Pers.Sci.10,44-52.(doi:10.1177/1948550617733518)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar98.NorenzayanA.2013Biggods:Howreligiontransformedcooperationandconflict.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Crossref, GoogleScholar99.PurzyckiBG,ApicellaC,AtkinsonQD,CohenE,McNamaraRA,WillardAK,XygalatasD,NorenzayanA,HenrichJ.2016Moralisticgods,supernaturalpunishmentandtheexpansionofhumansociality.Nature530,327-330.(doi:10.1038/nature16980)Crossref,PubMed,ISI, GoogleScholar100.ZmigrodL,GoldenbergA.Inpress.Cognitionandemotioninextremepoliticalaction:individualdifferencesanddynamicinteractions.Curr.Dir.Psychol.Sci.(doi:10.31234/osf.io/w3hj6)GoogleScholar101.KashimaY,PerforsA,FerdinandV,PattendenE.2021Ideology,communicationandpolarization.Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B376,20200133.(doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0133)Link,ISI, GoogleScholar102.LewisAR,DjupePA,MockabeeST,Su-YaWuJ.2015The(non)religionofMechanicalTurkworkers.J.Sci.Stud.Rel.54,419-428.(doi:10.1111/jssr.12184)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar103.FatkeM.2017Personalitytraitsandpoliticalideology:afirstglobalassessment.PoliticalPsychol.38,881-899.(doi:10.1111/pops.12347)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar104.FedericoCM,MalkaA.2018Thecontingent,contextualnatureoftherelationshipbetweenneedsforsecurityandcertaintyandpoliticalpreferences:evidenceandimplications.PoliticalPsychol.39,3-48.(doi:10.1111/pops.12477)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar105.HatemiPK,McDermottR.2016Givemeattitudes.Ann.Rev.PoliticalSci.19,331-350.(doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-103113-034929)Crossref,ISI, GoogleScholar PreviousArticleNextArticle FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCitedByDeDreuC,PliskinR,Rojek-GiffinM,MéderZandGrossJ(2021)Politicalgamesofattackanddefence,PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences,376:1822,Onlinepublicationdate:12-Apr-2021.KashimaY,PerforsA,FerdinandVandPattendenE(2021)Ideology,communicationandpolarization,PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences,376:1822,Onlinepublicationdate:12-Apr-2021.EckerU,SzeBandAndreottaM(2021)Correctionsofpoliticalmisinformation:noevidenceforaneffectofpartisanworldviewinaUSconveniencesample,PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences,376:1822,Onlinepublicationdate:12-Apr-2021.TsakirisM,VeharNandTucciarelliR(2021)Visceralpolitics:atheoreticalandempiricalproofofconcept,PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences,376:1822,Onlinepublicationdate:12-Apr-2021.RomanoA,SutterM,LiuJandBallietD(2021)Politicalideology,cooperationandnationalparochialismacross42nations,PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences,376:1822,Onlinepublicationdate:12-Apr-2021. (2021)Pandora'sBox,BJPsychInternational,10.1192/bji.2021.9,18:2,(51-52),Onlinepublicationdate:1-May-2021. ZmigrodLandTsakirisM(2021)Computationalandneurocognitiveapproachestothepoliticalbrain:keyinsightsandfutureavenuesforpoliticalneuroscience,PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences,376:1822,Onlinepublicationdate:12-Apr-2021. ZmigrodL(2021)Aneurocognitivemodelofideologicalthinking,PoliticsandtheLifeSciences,10.1017/pls.2021.10,(1-15) ThisIssue12April2021Volume376Issue1822Themeissue‘Thepoliticalbrain:neurocognitiveandcomputationalmechanisms’compiledandeditedbyLeorZmigrodandManosTsakiris ArticleInformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0424PubMed:33611995Publishedby:RoyalSocietyPrintISSN:0962-8436OnlineISSN:1471-2970History: Manuscriptaccepted24/11/2020Publishedonline22/02/2021Publishedinprint12/04/2021 License:©2021TheAuthors.PublishedbytheRoyalSocietyunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/,whichpermitsunrestricteduse,providedtheoriginalauthorandsourcearecredited. Citationsandimpact Keywordsdrift-diffusionmodelattitudespoliticalpsychologyperceptionideologicalcognitiondogmatismPDFDownload Subjectsbehaviourcognition CloseFigureViewerBrowseAllFiguresReturntoFigureChangezoomlevelZoominZoomoutPreviousFigureNextFigureCaption