Researchers have identified the brain areas that regulate political intensity, providing insights that could foster political understanding and enhance clinical evaluations.
Political passion, often influenced by a range of factors such as education and environment, may also have a neurological basis. A recent study published in the journal Brain has pinpointed specific brain networks that regulate the fervor of political engagement. Led by Northwestern University and the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, the research offers a new perspective on how political intensity is formed and expressed.
The study focused on Vietnam War veterans, both with and without brain injuries. The researchers compared participants with localized brain lesions to those without and identified which brain areas could affect the intensity of political feelings.
Significantly, damage to the prefrontal cortex, a brain region crucial for cognitive control and reasoning, was associated with heightened political intensity. Conversely, damage to the amygdala, involved in emotional processing, led to decreased political intensity. These findings persisted even after accounting for variables such as age, education, party affiliation, personality traits and other neuropsychiatric symptoms.
“While most people have not sustained brain injuries akin to those experienced by the veterans in the study, our findings tell us what neural circuits are at play for the population at large,” senior author Jordan Grafman, a professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of brain injury research at Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, said in a news release.
“We didn’t find brain networks tied to liberal or conservative ideology, but we identified circuits that influence the intensity of political engagement across the political spectrum,” Grafman added. “This suggests that factors like emotion shape how pre-existing political beliefs are expressed, rather than determining ideology itself.”
Understanding these brain mechanisms can offer strategies for more productive political engagement. Potential approaches might include engaging in political discussions with reduced emotional attachment or taking the perspective of an adversary. Collaborative endeavors on mutually supported projects could also be beneficial.
The study also carries clinical implications. Neuropsychiatric assessments rarely consider changes in political behavior post-injury, but Grafman recommends incorporating these aspects.
“Like other aspects of social behavior, assessments should consider asking whether a patient has experienced changes in their political attitudes since their brain injury,” he added.
The Study Method
The research was part of the long-term Vietnam Head Injury Study, led by Grafman since his tenure in the U.S. Air Force.
Between 2008 and 2012, neuroscientists conducted extensive behavioral assessments on the veterans, analyzing various aspects of their political beliefs and the intensity of their political feelings, decades post-injury.
The study included 124 male U.S. military veterans with penetrating head trauma and 35 combat-exposed control participants without brain injuries.
Prior neuroimaging had mapped the veterans’ brain lesions, and the researchers used lesion network mapping to link specific brain networks to political beliefs.
Grafman has previously studied the biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism and suggests that understanding the brain’s role in shaping beliefs can lead to better assessments in both medical and everyday contexts.
“We expect this research will point to ways we can assist patients in recovering from brain injuries,” added Grafman.
The study co-authors include Shan H Siddiqia from Harvard University, Stephanie Balters from Stanford University, Giovanna Zamboni from the University of Modena, in Italy, and Shira Cohen-Zimerman from Northwestern.
Source: Northwestern University