High IQ men tend to be less conservative than their average peers, study finds

The stereotype of the eccentric genius with radical political views is a common trope in fiction. A new study challenges this assumption by suggesting that highly intelligent adults may hold political views that are remarkably similar to the general population. Researchers found that adults identified as gifted in childhood largely share the same political outlooks as their non-gifted peers, with one specific exception regarding conservatism in men. These findings were published in the scientific journal Intelligence.

Society often looks to gifted individuals to solve major problems. These individuals frequently occupy leadership roles in economics, science, and politics. Because they hold positions of influence, understanding how they view the world is a matter of public interest.

Researchers have spent decades trying to understand the link between cognitive ability and political belief. Some past theories suggested that higher intelligence leads to left-wing or liberal views. Other theories proposed that intelligent people might favor economic conservatism.

The results of these past studies have been inconsistent. This inconsistency led a team of researchers to investigate the matter using a long-term approach. They wanted to see if distinct political patterns emerge when comparing gifted adults to a control group of average intelligence.

The lead author of the study is Maximilian Krolo from the Department of Educational Science at Saarland University in Germany. He collaborated with Jörn R. Sparfeldt, also from Saarland University, and Detlef H. Rost from the Department of Psychology at Philipps-University Marburg.

The team based their research on the “Cognitive Complexity-Openness Hypothesis.” This concept suggests that people with higher intelligence are generally more open to new experiences. They are also thought to be better equipped to handle complex or nuanced ideas.

If this hypothesis holds true, gifted individuals might reject rigid political dogmas. They might gravitate toward more flexible or moderate positions. The researchers aimed to test if this theoretical flexibility translates into specific political preferences in adulthood.

To do this, the authors utilized data from the Marburg Giftedness Project. This is a longitudinal study based in Germany that tracks the development of individuals over time. The project began during the 1987-1988 school year.

The initial phase involved examining over 7,000 third-grade students. The researchers administered standardized intelligence tests to this large group. These tests measured reasoning abilities and the speed at which the students processed information.

From this large pool, the team identified a group of gifted students. These students had an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 130 or higher. In the general population, an IQ of 100 is considered average.

The researchers then selected a control group of non-gifted students. This group had IQ scores near 100. The researchers ensured this control group matched the gifted group in other ways, such as gender ratios and socioeconomic background.

This matching process was designed to ensure fair comparisons. It allows researchers to be more confident that any differences found later are actually due to intelligence differences.

Six years later, when the students were in the ninth grade, the team tested them again. This re-evaluation confirmed the cognitive status of the participants. It ensured that the classification of “gifted” or “non-gifted” remained accurate as the children entered adolescence.

The current study focuses on these same individuals roughly 35 years after they were first identified. The participants were now adults with an average age of about 43. The researchers sent them surveys to assess their political orientations.

A total of 87 gifted adults and 71 non-gifted adults completed the survey. The response rate was notably high for a study spanning so many decades. This level of participation helps strengthen the reliability of the data.

The survey measured political views in two different ways. The first method was a simple single-dimensional scale. Participants were asked to place themselves on a spectrum ranging from left (1) to right (10).

The second method was more detailed. The researchers used the “Political Ideologies Questionnaire” to measure four distinct dimensions of political thought. These dimensions allowed for a more precise understanding of specific beliefs.

The first dimension was economic libertarianism. This viewpoint emphasizes free markets and individual liberty in economic matters. People who score high here often view merit-based inequality as fair.

The second dimension was conservatism. This outlook values tradition and social stability. High scorers usually believe that shared culture and established rules are necessary to prevent societal fragmentation.

The third dimension was socialism. This perspective focuses on equality of outcome. It emphasizes protecting disadvantaged groups and may advocate for social changes to reduce exploitation.

The fourth dimension was liberalism. In this context, liberalism refers to placing a high value on individual autonomy. It suggests that people should be free to live as they please provided they do not harm others.

The researchers analyzed the survey data using statistical methods called Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). They checked for differences between the gifted and non-gifted groups. They also looked for differences based on sex.

On the simple left-right scale, the results showed no statistical difference between the two groups. Both the gifted and non-gifted adults tended to place themselves near the center of the spectrum. This suggests a general tendency toward moderation in both groups.

The researchers then analyzed the four specific dimensions of the detailed questionnaire. For economic libertarianism, socialism, and liberalism, the analysis again showed no statistical difference between the groups. Giftedness did not appear to push individuals toward or away from these specific ideologies.

However, a distinct pattern emerged regarding the dimension of conservatism. The researchers found an interaction effect between giftedness and sex. This means the relationship between intelligence and conservatism depended on whether the participant was male or female.

Specifically, non-gifted men scored higher on conservatism than gifted men. The non-gifted men were more likely to endorse values related to tradition and strict social order. Gifted men were less likely to hold these traditional conservative views.

This difference was not observed among the women in the study. Gifted women and non-gifted women showed similar levels of conservatism. The divergence was unique to the male participants.

The researchers used supplementary Bayesian analyses to verify these results. Bayesian analysis is a statistical technique that weighs the strength of evidence for different models. These additional tests supported the initial findings.

The team interpreted the findings through the lens of cognitive flexibility. They suggest that non-gifted men might rely more on traditional perspectives when processing complex social issues. This reliance could lead to higher conservatism scores.

On the other hand, gifted men may possess greater cognitive flexibility. This allows them to process diverse perspectives more easily. Consequently, they may be less inclined to adhere to rigid traditional norms.

The lack of difference in the other categories supports the “centering” hypothesis. This is the idea that intelligent individuals often avoid extreme political positions. They may see extreme views as oversimplifications of a complex reality.

The authors also noted that the German political context might play a role. Germany has a “social market economy” that blends capitalism with social welfare. This cultural environment might encourage a consensus around moderate views for everyone, regardless of intelligence.

As with all research, there are limitations to the study that must be considered. The sample size was relatively small, which is common in studies that last for decades. A larger sample might have detected smaller effects that this study missed.

Additionally, the study was conducted exclusively in Germany. Political terms like “liberal” or “conservative” can have different meanings in different countries. The results might not apply perfectly to the political landscape of the United States or other nations.

The study also relied on self-reported beliefs. While honest reporting is assumed, people sometimes describe themselves differently than their actions might suggest.

Future research could address these limitations by looking at actual behavior. For instance, scientists could examine voting records or party memberships. This would help determine if these internal orientations translate into real-world political action.

Despite the limitations, the study offers a clear message. High intelligence does not automatically lead to radical or distinct political views. Gifted adults appear to be as politically diverse and moderate as the rest of the population.

The one notable exception regarding male conservatism warrants further investigation. It highlights how intelligence and gender might interact to shape how people value tradition.

Ultimately, this research suggests that while gifted individuals may process information differently, their political conclusions are not fundamentally alien. They navigate the same societal debates as everyone else. Their minds may be exceptional, but their politics are often quite ordinary.

The study, “Exploring exceptional minds: Political orientations of gifted adults,” was authored by Maximilian Krolo, Jörn R. Sparfeldt, and Detlef H. Rost.