A few years ago a study funded by the Pew Research center asked: "Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?" The question was based on polls conducted and directed at individuals who identified themselves as either Conservatives or Liberals. The study that led to the findings was conducted by Jaime L. Napier and John T. Jost. The conclusion or reason why they asserted this is -- Rationalization of Inequalities. The term implies a justification system based on meritocracy.
In other words, conservatives have uncomplicated and non-stressful ways of explaining away social and economic inequalities because they believe the "haves" achieved what they have based on hard work, talent or personal achievement, while the "have nots" simply didn't work hard enough. In that belief system, there is full justification for keeping and perpetuating a status quo as well as the ideal that if you work hard enough (no matter what) you can achieve whatever you want to be without outside help.
The contrasting ideas between rationalization based on meritocracy and the way of worrying about social inequalities present differing cognitive styles that may explain the increased relative happiness of conservative individuals and be a cause for the unhappiness of others who are considered liberal. So, while defining a conservative cognitive style as one that is uncomplicated and unambiguous and a liberal cognitive style as one that tends to speculate more and prolong the implications of social and economic issues, the latter seems to cause more stress to the bearer while trying to resolve social inequalities. The study concludes that "inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives, apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."
So this can indeed present fertile ground for the people who worry about social inequalities and are frustrated at the insensitivity of some conservatives.
