Kruglanski - The Psychology of Closed-Mindedness

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.