Why are consistently-handed individuals more authoritarian? The role of need for cognitive closure.

Recent studies indicate that individuals with consistent hand preference are more authoritarian than individuals whose preference is relatively inconsistent. We explored the role of epistemic needs in the handedness-authoritarianism relationship. Based on findings that consistent individuals are less cognitively flexible than inconsistent individuals, we hypothesized that consistent-handers would report greater need for definite knowledge. To measure this, we administered the revised Need for Cognitive Closure scale to a sample of undergraduates (N = 235), along with measures of handedness consistency and authoritarian submission. Consistent individuals scored significantly higher on authoritarian submission and need for closure. Need for closure fully mediated the relationship between consistency and submission. Consistent individuals also expressed greater prejudice against authoritarian out-groups such as immigrants and liberals. This effect was partially mediated by authoritarian submission. We theorize that consistent-handers' cognitive inflexibility leads them to covet definite knowledge. These individuals turn to authoritarianism because it promises to stifle dissent and protect existing (conventional) knowledge.

Consistent-handed individuals are more authoritarian.

Individuals differ in the consistency with which they use one hand over the other to perform everyday activities. Some individuals are very consistent, habitually using a single hand to perform most tasks. Others are relatively inconsistent, and hence make greater use of both hands. More- versus less-consistent individuals have been shown to differ in numerous aspects of personality and cognition. In several respects consistent-handed individuals resemble authoritarian individuals. For example, both consistent-handedness and authoritarianism have been linked to cognitive inflexibility. Therefore we hypothesised that consistent-handedness is an external marker for authoritarianism. Confirming our hypothesis, we found that consistent-handers scored higher than inconsistent-handers on a measure of submission to authority, were more likely to identify with a conservative political party (Republican), and expressed less-positive attitudes towards out-groups. We propose that authoritarianism may be influenced by the degree of interaction between the left and right brain hemispheres, which has been found to differ between consistent- and inconsistent-handed individuals.

Handedness and the neurocognitive foundations of public attitudes about international laws and norms.

Whether Geneva Conventions (GC) rights should apply to terrorists is a contentious question that has received little attention in public opinion research. Both personality and contextual factors may be important. We queried participants' support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists, but first we measured participants' authoritarianism and presented them with a scenario concerning an alleged terrorist. We manipulated whether (1) the scenario contained examples of GC rights and (2) the alleged terrorist's religious affiliation was Muslim or non-Muslim. Support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists was high and unaffected by providing examples of GC provisions, but it was negatively related to authoritarianism. Support was reduced by priming with a Muslim terrorist, but only among participants exhibiting a behavioral marker for limited interhemispheric interaction - consistent-handedness. Consistent-handers in our sample expressed greater authoritarianism, suggesting that limited interhemispheric interaction promotes greater authoritarianism, which decreases support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists.