> they wrote: "that some of the common PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS (emph.
> added) linked to political conservatism include" and "From our
> perspective, these psychological factors ARE CAPABLE OF CONTRIBUTING TO
> the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently
> or in combination"
So do you think they would allow that they could be just as linked to political liberalism? And that the opposite traits are just as capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents? I'm not sure something can count as an explanation if the opposite works just as well.
But now that you've pressed me to rethink, I realize my objection could be phrase more precisely in terms of their central definition of conservative ideological content: opposition to change. By that definition, neo-conservativism is not conservatism -- and mainstream Democratic party liberalism is.
Michael