Why do some people refuse to compromise their positions on politicized practices? The role of need for closure

Abstract

People's stances on politicized practices, such as abortion and gun ownership, are increasingly resistant to compromise, making dialogue between opposing sides difficult. Why are some people more prone to refusing to compromise on their stances on politicized practices than others? Five studies (N = 1377) found that high need for closure (NFC) is an antecedent of refusal to compromise. Study 1 found that people scoring higher on dispositional NFC were unwilling to compromise on their stances on gun ownership, hunting, marijuana consumption, and euthanasia, even after controlling for the extremity, importance, intensity, and centrality of each of these attitudes. Study 2 focused on abortion, a practice that is highly politicized in the US. Under time pressure, which reliably heightens NFC, both pro-life and pro-choice participants became more unwilling to compromise on their respective positions on abortion. Study 3 found that the relationship between NFC and refusal to compromise on one's position on several politicized practices was stronger among individuals who prioritized binding moral foundations (which emphasize group cohesion) rather than individualizing moral foundations (which emphasize personal autonomy). Studies 4–5 examined the underlying mechanism using the experimental causal chain method. Time pressure, which reliably heightens NFC, increased people's tendency to use deontological reasoning, a cognitive style that emphasizes rule-based over outcome-based judgments (Study 4), and inducing deontological reasoning heightened resistance to compromising one's positions on several politicized practices (Study 5). Together, these studies uncover a potential psychological mechanism behind political polarization, a highly divisive phenomenon, and identify pathways that could inform efforts to reduce intergroup conflict