What peer-reviewed studies compare average cognitive ability across political ideologies?

1. What the peer‑reviewed literature actually measures: “ability,” not virtue

Studies typically measure objective cognitive ability (IQ, verbal ability, numeracy, CRT) or cognitive styles (cognitive reflection, actively open‑minded thinking), and then test correlations with self‑reported ideology or policy positions. Several nationally representative datasets (ANES, GSS) and meta‑analyses have been used to show that verbal ability correlates with socially liberal positions and sometimes with fiscally conservative positions — indicating ideology is multidimensional and associations vary by measure ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The repeated pattern: lower social conservatism correlates with higher ability in many studies

Meta‑analytic synthesis and repeated empirical work report a negative association between cognitive ability and social conservatism/authoritarianism (for example, correlations stronger with right‑wing authoritarianism, r≈−.30, than with broad social conservatism) and links between lower numeracy or CRT scores and right‑wing identity in some samples ^[2]. This is a central, replicated finding across many peer‑reviewed papers ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Verbal ability emerges as the key driver in multiple large studies

Multiple papers single out verbal ability rather than nonverbal skills as the predictor of political preferences: verbal IQ predicts turnout, civic engagement, traditionalism and ideology in within‑family samples and in GSS analyses, suggesting argument comprehension and verbal reasoning may underlie many observed links ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Newer approaches: genetics and within‑family designs add nuance

A 2024 study combining measured IQ and polygenic scores used within‑family designs (siblings, adoptees) to reduce shared environmental confounds and still found cognitive ability linked to left‑leaning and liberal beliefs; authors explicitly note confounding and mediation remain possible (socioeconomic status, education) ^{[4] [5]}. These methods sharpen causal inference but do not settle causality ^[5].

5. Counterevidence and complexity: not a uniform or deterministic relationship

Several findings complicate a simple “smarter = more liberal” headline. Cognitive ability relates differently to social vs economic ideology; some fiscally conservative attitudes correlate positively with ability ^[1]. Registered reports show cognitive ability predicts greater political animosity and favouritism toward in‑group and out‑group — and cognitive reflection may behave differently from raw ability — indicating higher ability does not uniformly reduce bias or polarization ^{[6] [7]}.

6. Mechanisms proposed and unresolved issues

Authors propose mechanisms such as argument comprehension (verbal ability), cognitive flexibility, and socio‑economic mediation (intelligent people aligning with class interests). But literature notes contradictory results for some links (e.g., cognitive ability and moral foundations) and calls for longitudinal and context‑sensitive work because societal change can alter patterns ^{[5] [3]}. Available sources do not mention a definitive causal pathway that fully explains all associations.

7. Where the debate focuses now: measurement, multidimensional ideology, and sampling

Contested points in peer‑reviewed work include which cognitive tests matter (verbal vs nonverbal), whether ideology should be split into social/economic axes, and whether samples (convenience vs nationally representative) bias findings. Several papers caution that earlier lesion and neuroimaging claims about “conservatism = impairment” are overinterpreted; lesion and brain studies show associations with political behaviour intensity but not simple causation of ideology ^[8].

8. Practical takeaway for readers and journalists

The peer‑reviewed field supports a replicable association pattern—especially for verbal ability and social liberalism—but it is not proof that one ideology is inherently “smarter.” Genetic, longitudinal, and registered‑report studies complicate the story and show the relationship depends on which cognitive measure, which ideological dimension, and which sample are used ^{[4] [6] [1] [2]}. Reporters should avoid simplistic headlines and cite which cognitive measures and datasets underlie any claim.

Sources cited above are peer‑reviewed empirical studies, meta‑analyses, registered reports and large‑sample analyses included in the provided search results (examples: ^[4]; ^[5]; ^[9]; ^[6]; ^[7]; ^[1]; ^[8]; ^[2]; ^[4]3).