Much of my reading over the last couple of years has been in
search of understanding regarding the dysfunctional and destructive politics of
the U.S. and the rise in white supremacy, homophobia, and other forms of
prejudice and discrimination. Kruglanski’s The
Psychology of Closed Mindedness (2004) helped me understand why and how
people are, or become, closed-minded, an intellectual characteristic that his
research indicates contributes to hardened conservatism.
Kruglanski starts with an assertion that to be closed-minded
is necessary and actually desirable. If it were not for our ability to come to
a conclusion on any number of issues, we would be in perpetual indecisive
limbo. As an academic book with citations for numerous research studies of his
own and others, Kruglanski described the phenomenon of closed-mindedness and
proposed ways to relate to those with this inclination. Kruglanski explored
closed-mindedness in groups as well. He proposed that closed-mindedness in
groups results in greater cohesion that fosters shared social reality,
resulting in comfort and support for those within the group while separating
from others where there is less in common. Individual and group closed-mindedness
contributes to an increase in prejudice, more communication problems, struggles
in establishing empathy and achieving successful negotiation, and it can result
in the persecution of other out-groups.
The foundation of The
Psychology of Closed Mindedness is its “Typology of Epistimic Motivation”
(p. 4), which follows:
Closure
Approach/Avoidance
|
|||
Approach
|
Avoidance
|
||
Specificity/Nonspecificity
|
Nonspecific
|
Need for a Nonspecific closure
|
Need to avoid a Nonspecific closure
|
Specific
|
Need for a Specific closure
|
Need to Avoid a Specific closure
|
|
The premise is that individuals vary in both their need to
achieve a specific or a nonspecific outcome and they vary in regard to their
desire for closure or avoidance of closure. Starting in the upper left, striving for
nonspecific closure is characteristic of those who seek the comfort of
direction and clarity but who aren’t particular about what that direction will
be. The lower left, need for specific closure, is characteristic of decisive
people and is often associated with what others view as an influential or
leader type. The upper right, avoiding nonspecific closure, reflects when we
simply don’t have enough information to be comfortable taking any direction.
The bottom right, avoiding specific closure, is when someone does not like a
specific conclusion that appears before them and thus they seek to keep their
deliberations open, seeking to identify other options or outcomes.
Kruglanski focused much of his analysis on the motivations
of those who seek closure in nonspecific terms (the upper left box of the
quadrant). People who seek closure in this way are susceptible to
authoritarianism and they may blindly follow someone who gives them an answer, or
a conclusion, to a question or problem that nags them. Why they follow may be
based on insecurity about themselves, lack of life direction, and perceived
denial of opportunity, all of which makes them vulnerable to manipulation by
someone who labels another group (through prejudicial stereotypes) as the cause
of problems for the individual and the group to which s/he is affiliated.
Closed-minded individuals tend to seize and freeze on a
particular idea. The desire for closure, regardless of what it is, then
crystallizes and hardens, reducing the possibility of considering new
information related to the question at hand. Especially when a significant
other influencer, whether individual or group, advocates a particular view, the
closed minded person holds fast to an idea even when they may not know the
rationale or ultimate objective behind it. Worse yet, the closed-minded person
may discredit contrasting perspectives in order to avoid having to fit this
competing information into the whole of their perception. While Kruglanski’s
analysis preceded the current claims of ‘fake news,’ this is precisely what is
happening – anything that competes with the view the closed-minded person holds
is evaluated as irrelevant or ‘fake.’
There are several variables that further complicate the
tendency toward closed-mindedness. These variables include; unwillingness to
consider alternatives, adopting the first thing that comes to mind, and being
guided by prejudice and stereotypes based on perceptions of past experiences.
The combination of these is likely to result in the closed-minded person being
less empathic toward those dissimilar to themselves and being less capable in
communicating with them as well. Two specific circumstances, time pressure and
the bias inherent in the identity one embraces, can result in quick and
prejudicial decisions. The issue of bias in favor of one’s own identity is
exacerbated by the fact that those with a high need for closure tend to prefer
abstract descriptions/generalizations rather then delving more deeply into
concrete, specific, and situational variables involved in forming an opinion. These
and other variables result in quick and hardened perspectives that are often
aligned with “right wing authoritarianism” (p. 41) that includes authoritarian
submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism.
Kruglanski’s research and theorization around the psychology
of closed-mindedness is critical to our finding a way through our difficult
political times, thus allowing humanity to move forward in ways that embrace
connectedness across cultures and countries rather than erecting walls to separate
us. As he says, “the frantic pace of modernism may have evoked in numerous
individuals a heightened need for closure, fostering the embracement of
clear-cut social realities (contained in ethnic or religious identities), the
increased attraction to in-groups whose members share in the same realities,
and a rejection of out-groups whose discrepant realities threaten one’s own
sense of the world” (p. 127). In the face of this potentially divisive and
conflicted world, promising options that are available to those who will lead
are: to help individuals and groups find optimism, self-worth, and
self-assurance in positive and connected ways; to encourage more concrete and
person-grounded understanding; to avoid making important decisions under time
pressure, excessive cognitive load, and fatigue; and to strive for rational discourse that consistently considers multiple perspectives in deliberation.
