Ideological Conservatism: Psychologist's Delimma

An interesting research paper that attempts to tap into the conservative mind. Its findings could also explain this last election cycle. If anyone has some freetime, I suggest you read it. Some quoteS:
FROM: Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339�375

History suggests that people do not always move to the
political right under conditions of crisis; in the United States, the
same economic depression resulted in a significant left-wing
movement led by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Nevertheless, the possibility
remains that a threat to the stability of the social system, such
as that felt in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, may increase
right-wing conservatism, at least under certain circumstances.

We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system
that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational
concerns having to do with the psychological management of
uncertainty and fear. Specifically, the avoidance of uncertainty
(and the striving for certainty) may be particularly tied to one core
dimension of conservative thought, resistance to change (Wilson,
1973c). Similarly, concerns with fear and threat may be linked to
the second core dimension of conservatism, endorsement of inequality
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Although resistance to change
and support for inequality are conceptually distinguishable, we
have argued that they are psychologically interrelated, in part
because motives pertaining to uncertainty and threat are interrelated
(e.g., Dechesne et al., 2000; McGregor et al., 2001; van den
Bos & Miedema, 2000).

(online link)
psychoanalystsopposewar.org...

I wonder what these psychologists would say about the tendency of some conservatives to oversimplification of issues into right and wrong, good and evil, with or against, etc.

Actually, they do have something about that in the article. They talk about conservatives not liking ambiguities. This would make sense in the moral realm; having a strict "right" and "wrong" removes ambiguity.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by radardog]

Yeah, and I wonder what these shrinks would say about theotehr side's inability to see right from wrong, good from evil....oh yeah, it is all relative!
Come here, Otts, pretend like your my relative and let me rip your heart out! It's not evil, it all depends on how you look at it!

The country is never "divided" unless the republicans win. There's no reason to suspect mental problems unless talking about a conservative! HA!

maybe i missed it but what is the actual Psychologist's Delimma with conservitives?

or is this like a critique of the conservitive psyche or something?

making a black and white, good and evil picture makes total sense. if you are faced with a national crisis, you look to a solid team with a strong message that you agree with. in a war, you cant be wishy-washy, you have to be decisive, you have to be right and they have to be wrong.

the great depression was a much different crisis, at a diferent time. hoover and coolidge were so bad, fdr was bound to be amazing. and he didnt dissapoint. an economic crisis, with huge unemployment, i would want somone who wouldnt see a single cause. i wud want someone who would see every side of every issue and tackle them to fix teh current situation and to prevent it from happening again.