The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions
Open accessAbstract
A contentious debate in political psychology has centred on the role of cognitive rigidity in shaping individuals’ political ideologies and worldviews. Early theories in the 1950s posited that strict ideological doctrines may tend to attract individuals with dispositions towards mental rigidity. This question has persisted: Does psychological rigidity foster a tendency towards ideological extremism? This review evaluates the empirical landscape with respect to the rigidity-of-the-extreme and the rigidity-of-the-right hypotheses and offers conceptual and methodological recommendations for future research avenues. The evidence suggests that cognitive rigidity is linked to ideological extremism, partisanship, and dogmatism across political and non-political ideologies. Advances in the measurement of ideological extremity and cognitive rigidity will facilitate further elucidation regarding how exactly the two hypotheses may be reconciled and why they have been historically placed in a potentially false competition. This synthesis suggests that a scientifically rigorous understanding of the cognitive roots of ideological thinking may be essential for developing effective antidotes to intolerance and intergroup hostility.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Tight beliefs fuel polarization, partisanship, fanaticism, and extremism, with profound political and social consequences.
“They have profound political and social consequences as they fuel polarization, partisanship, fanaticism, and extremism [161,162].”
From Impact of Media-Induced Uncertainty on Mental Health: Narrative-Based Perspective. (2025) · cites this paper as [162]
The Empirical evidence section links cognitive rigidity with stronger partisanship and extremist attitudes, and discusses willingness to harm or self-sacrifice for an ideological group. It does not establish that tight beliefs cause those outcomes, nor does it show that they fuel polarization or describe the asserted political and social consequences. The paper explicitly raises questions about causality. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAs a result, ideologically polarized group members may exhibit cognitive rigidity - psychological inflexibility and a failure to adapt to novel environments and unfamiliar ways of thinking.
“As a result, they may exhibit cognitive rigidity — psychological inflexibility and a failure to adapt to novel environments and unfamiliar ways of thinking106,107.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [106]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 162
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Shils E: Ideology and civility: on the politics of the intellectual. Sewanee Rev 1958, 66:450-480. Retrieved from http://www.jstor. org/stable/27538749.
- Conway LG III, Gornick LJ, Houck SC, Anderson C, Stockert J, Sessoms D, McCue K: Are conservatives really more simple- minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychol 2016, 37:777-798.
- Authors
- Zmigrod, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zmigrod, Leor
- ORCID
- Zmigrod, Leor
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 34
- Pages
- 34-39
- ISSN
- 2352-1546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3003290615
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Gates Cambridge Trust
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Keywords
- cognitive rigidity, political ideology, ideological extremism, partisanship, dogmatism, intolerance, intergroup hostility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
