Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Do people that align with right leaning policies have lower levels of intelligence?
Executive Summary
Three decades of research produce no simple answer: there is a modest, context‑dependent association between lower measured cognitive ability and some forms of right‑wing attitudes, especially social conservatism and authoritarianism, but the effect is small and heterogeneous. Large meta‑analyses and multi‑method studies report average negative correlations while family, geographic, and issue‑type controls show the relationship varies by economic versus social ideology, education, and measurement approach [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the question keeps resurfacing — a surprisingly consistent but small statistical pattern
Meta‑analytic work synthesizing 67 studies (N = 84,017) finds an average correlation of about r = −0.20 between cognitive ability and endorsement of right‑wing ideological attitudes, a modest negative association that is statistically reliable but far from determinative of any individual’s views. The meta‑analysis also reports a similar negative link between cognitive ability and prejudice, underscoring that the effect appears stronger for social attitudes tied to authoritarianism and ethnocentrism than for all conservative positions [1]. Authors emphasize that correlations do not imply causation and that effect sizes vary with the cognitive tests used and the ideological measures applied, meaning the headline figure cannot be read as a universal rule; it describes an average tendency across diverse samples and measures.
2. Newer genetic and twin evidence complicates the neat narrative
Recent twin and polygenic‑score studies using German samples report higher average IQs among identifiers of some left‑leaning parties (Pirate Party, Greens) and show that both genetic and environmental factors predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism within families, even when controlling for socioeconomic variables [2] [4]. These findings indicate that part of the association reflects shared genetic influences on cognition and political attitudes, but they also show that economic versus social dimensions of ideology behave differently; intelligence predicts social liberalism more consistently than economic conservatism, and educational and family environments moderate observed links [2] [4]. The twin designs highlight that population averages can mask substantial within‑family variability.
3. Regional, measurement, and socioeconomic context matter — studies point to mixed directions
Multiple recent analyses show that when you disaggregate ideology and control for socioeconomic status, the association between intelligence and political orientation becomes far less uniform. Some U.S. studies find small Republican advantages on certain verbal or probability‑knowledge measures that dissipate after accounting for education and income [5] [6]. Meta‑analytic and longitudinal work concludes that intelligence explains only a small fraction of variance in conservatism — roughly single‑digit percentages in many designs — and the sign of the relationship can flip depending on whether the focus is economic policy, social authoritarianism, or specific cognitive tests used [3] [1]. This heterogeneity explains why different studies report opposing headlines.
4. Mechanisms proposed by researchers — cognition, motivated reasoning, and social exposure
Researchers propose multiple mechanisms for observed links: lower cognitive test scores may relate to greater reliance on intuitive processing and higher endorsement of simplistic or categorical social narratives, which correlate with authoritarian and ethnocentric attitudes, while higher cognitive ability and education promote openness to complexity and cross‑group contact [7] [8]. Genetic analyses suggest shared heritability between cognitive performance and some social attitudes, but environmental pathways — schooling, social networks, and occupational sorting — also shape the pattern, indicating no single causal mechanism dominates [4] [7]. The result is a mosaic of influences where cognition matters alongside many other determinants.
5. Practical takeaways: averages versus individuals and political implications
The research converges on three practical points: first, averages do not describe individuals — many highly intelligent people hold conservative views and many lower‑scoring people hold liberal ones; second, effect sizes are modest and context‑sensitive, strongest for social authoritarianism and weaker or mixed for economic ideology [1] [3]; third, policy and scholarly debates should avoid crude generalizations that present political opponents as categorically less intelligent because that misreads the evidence and fuels polarization. Contemporary studies through 2025 continue to refine these nuances and underscore that intelligence is one small piece in a complex causal web linking cognition, environment, and political stance [6] [2].