Recent research has proposed a relationship between rigid political ideologies and underlying 'cognitive styles'. However, there remain discrepancies in how both social and cognitive rigidity are defined and measured. Problem-solving, or the ability to generate novel ideas by exploring unusual reasoning paths and challenging rigid perspectives around us, is often used to operationalize cognitive flexibility. Thus, we hypothesized a relation between forms of social rigidity, including Socio-cognitive polarization (i.e., a factor capturing conservative political ideology, absolutism/intolerance of ambiguity, and xenophobia), bullshit receptivity (i.e., overestimating pseudo-profound statements), overclaiming (tendency to self-enhance), and cognitive rigidity (i.e., problem-solving). Our results showed differences in performance on problem-solving tasks between four latent profiles of social rigidity identified in our sample. Specifically, those low in socio-cognitive polarization, bullshit, and overclaiming (i.e., less rigid) performed the best on problem-solving. Thus, we conclude that social and cognitive rigidity may share an underlying socio-cognitive construct, wherein those who are more socially rigid are also more likely to be also cognitively rigid when processing non-social information.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.