Conservatives vs. liberals: who takes more risks? Why don’t they see eye to eye?

Conservatives vs. liberals: who takes more risks?  Why don’t they see eye to eye?

In business, who takes more risks – conservatives vs. liberals?  It’s the conservatives, according to a new study out of Ryerson University. Said the researchers:   

“Contrary to the widely held perception that, on average, conservatives are risk-averse and liberals risk-taking, we find that in the financial domain, political conservatives show a higher propensity to take risks. . . . ”

Specifically, the researchers, led by assistant professor Becky Choma, found that “when there is much to gain but also much to lose, political conservatives show a willingness to engage in risky financial activities.” The study abstract added: “[W]ith regard to new business ventures, conservatives were generally willing to take risks unless perceived risk was high and expected benefit was low, whereas liberals were generally unwilling to take risks unless perceived risk was low and expected benefit was high.”

Summarized Eric Dolan, writing for psypost.com: “Conservatives were . . .  more likely to endorse financial uncertainties in high-risk, high-reward business situations . . . .”

In conducting the study, Choma and her colleagues divided risk-taking into five domains: financial, ethical, health, social and recreational.  The study confirmed the notion that conservatives are more risk-averse than liberals in the recreational and ethical domains, explaining: “Liberals tend to be more comfortable than political conservatives with violating social rules and are open to novel and thrill-seeking experiences.”  

Why conservatives and liberals don’t see eye to eye

Biology may be at work, according to a study out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 

In a series of experiments, researchers monitored physiological reactions and eye movements of study participants who were shown combinations of both pleasant and unpleasant images. According to a UNL study summary: “Conservatives reacted more strongly to, fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; liberals had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images compared with conservatives.”

Observed lead author Mike Dodd, assistant professor of psychology: "It's been said that conservatives and liberals don't see things in the same way. . . . These findings make that clear -- quite literally."

Co-authors Kevin Smith and John Hibbing, both UNL political scientists, maintain that the study lends credibility to the notion that political leanings are, in part, linked to our biology. 

The UNL report quoted Hibbings, who said: “The results might mean that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in life and are more naturally inclined to confront them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense.”  The UNL report continued to quote Hibbings, who added: “The results also are consistent with conservatives' support of policies to protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased defense spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well (support for traditional values and being tough on crime).”

The findings, according to Dodd, Smith and Hibbing, might provide a pathway to turn down political polarization in the country (the study was conducted prior to the 2012 presidential election).  Said the UNL report: “Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced if it was widely understood that political differences are based in part on our physiological and cognitive differences.”

Hibbings offered this final note (as quoted in the UNL report): "When conservatives say that liberals are out of it and just don't get it, from this standpoint, that's true. . . . And when liberals say 'What are (conservatives) so frightened of? Is the world really that dangerous?' Given what each side sees, what they pay attention to, what they physiologically experience -- the answer is both sides are right."

##