A new study published in Intelligence (PDF) has found that verbal intelligence—skills related to language, reasoning, and understanding—more strongly predicts voting, civic engagement, and political ideology than non-verbal (performance) intelligence. Researchers found that verbal intelligence has, on average, twice the influence of non-verbal intelligence on these socio-political attitudes and behaviors, even after accounting for education and family upbringing.
For over a century, research has shown a link between intelligence and various political and social attitudes, including voter turnout, religious beliefs, and ideology. Studies have suggested that intelligence correlates with more liberal political attitudes, lower religiosity, and higher civic participation. However, most of this research focuses on general intelligence, which reflects overall cognitive ability.
What is less clear is which specific types of cognitive skills drive this relationship. Intelligence is not a single, uniform ability. It can be divided into different domains, such as verbal ability (skills related to language and reasoning with words) and performance ability (skills related to spatial and visual reasoning).
Philosopher Robert Nozick once argued that individuals with higher verbal skills—whom he called “wordsmiths”—are particularly likely to hold anti-capitalist views. He believed this was because those with verbal talents often excel in academic settings, which can foster a sense of entitlement and resentment when they see others achieve greater economic success through non-verbal or practical skills.
Other scholars have proposed that verbal ability might make political participation easier because it helps people engage with arguments and process the information needed to vote. Despite these ideas, few studies have rigorously compared verbal and non-verbal abilities in predicting political attitudes.
The researchers sought to address this gap by examining whether verbal IQ and performance IQ differ in their relationship with socio-political attitudes and behaviors. By doing so, they hoped to better understand how cognitive abilities influence political beliefs and engagement.
“Research suggests that cognitive abilities may influence our political attitudes and behaviors. The missing gap in our knowledge is an understanding of how and why intelligence matters. An appreciation of which cognitive abilities drive the association might shed light on the mechanisms by which intelligence influences social attitudes,” explained study author Tobias Edwards, a PhD student in behavioral genetics at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
For their new study, the researchers used data from two large cohorts collected by the Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research: the Minnesota Twin and Family Study (MTFS) and the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS). These studies included thousands of twins, siblings, and parents who completed measures of cognitive abilities and socio-political attitudes.
Cognitive abilities were assessed using subtests from the Wechsler intelligence scales, which are widely used standardized tests of IQ. Two subtests, Vocabulary and Information, were combined to measure verbal IQ. These tasks involved defining words and answering general knowledge questions. Two other subtests, Block Design and Picture Arrangement, were used to measure performance IQ, which involves solving visual puzzles and sequencing pictures into a logical order.
The researchers also examined various socio-political attitudes and behaviors, including:
- Voter turnout: Self-reported voting behavior and government-validated voting records.
- Civic engagement: Participation in community and political activities, such as volunteering or contacting politicians.
- Religiosity: Importance of faith and frequency of religious practices.
- Traditionalism: Support for moral standards and conservative family values.
- Political ideology: Attitudes toward issues like authoritarianism, egalitarianism, fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism.
Edwards and his colleagues found that verbal IQ was consistently a stronger predictor of socio-political attitudes and behaviors than performance IQ. On average, the relationship between verbal IQ and socio-political attitudes was about twice as large as that of performance IQ.
Individuals with higher verbal IQ were more likely to vote in elections and participate in civic activities while being less inclined to endorse traditionalist and authoritarian values. They also tended to hold more liberal social attitudes and support egalitarian views.
In other words, those with higher verbal IQ were more likely to agree with statements such as:
- “I feel responsible for my community.”
- “More censorship of books and movies is a violation of free speech and should be abolished.”
- “Strong, tough government will harm, not help, our country.”
- “If wealth were more equal in this country, we would have many fewer problems.”
- “The number of immigrants from foreign countries who are permitted to come to the United States to live should be left as is or even increased.”
Interestingly, verbal IQ and performance IQ were equally good at predicting scores on a separate measure of general intelligence (the ICAR-16 test), suggesting that the difference in their predictive power was not due to one measure being a better indicator of overall intelligence. Instead, the results point to the unique importance of verbal skills in shaping political beliefs and behaviors.
“Cognitive abilities are known to correlate with liberal political beliefs and voter turnout,” Edwards told PsyPost. “Our research shows verbal ability is twice as predictive as non-verbal ability. A plausible explanation is that verbal ability influences how people consider and judge political arguments.”
The findings also held up in more rigorous analyses. For example, when the researchers compared siblings within the same family, the sibling with higher verbal IQ was still more likely to vote and hold less traditionalist views. Similarly, these patterns held even after accounting for education levels.
“The relationship between verbal ability and socio-political attitudes cannot be easily explained away by education,” Edwards explained. “We also find the same results within pairs of siblings raised in the same household. This means that upbringing cannot adequately account for verbal ability’s association with socio-political attitudes.”
While the study provides strong evidence for the role of verbal ability in socio-political attitudes, it also has some limitations. The sample primarily consisted of individuals from Minnesota, most of whom were of European descent. This raises questions about whether the findings generalize to other populations with different cultural or demographic backgrounds.
Additionally, the study did not disentangle the specific mechanisms linking verbal ability to political engagement. For instance, verbal skills might influence how individuals process political arguments, identify social norms, or justify their beliefs. Future research could explore these pathways in more detail.
“We can think of verbal ability as being caused by a combination of general intelligence and a unique aptitude for verbal tasks,” Edwards noted. “This unique part we call a group factor. Likewise, non-verbal ability can be considered as general intelligence plus a non-verbal group factor. While we have shown that verbal ability is more predictive of liberal attitudes than non-verbal ability, that does not necessarily mean the verbal group factor is associated with liberal attitudes. The same result could be attained if the non-verbal group factor causes illiberal attitudes.”
“Those with greater verbal ability report voting more and being more engaged in civic affairs, suggesting they may have more influence over society,” Edwards added. “An apocryphal quote, often ascribed to the intelligence researcher Edward Thorndike, states: ‘Colors fade, temples crumble, empires fall, but wise words endure.’ The power of wise words is reassuring to those sympathetic to the wordsmiths, although others will wonder whether the gift of gab is all too easily confused with wisdom.”
The study, “More than g: Verbal and performance IQ as predictors of socio-political attitudes,” was authored by Tobias Edwards, Christopher T. Dawes, Emily A. Willoughby, Matt McGue, and James J. Lee.
