Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology

Abstract

Disputes between those holding differing political views are ubiquitous and deep-seated, and they often follow common, recognizable lines. The supporters of tradition and stability, sometimes referred to as conservatives, do battle with the supporters of innovation and reform, sometimes referred to as liberals. Understanding the correlates of those distinct political orientations is probably a prerequisite for managing political disputes, which are a source of social conflict that can lead to frustration and even bloodshed. A rapidly growing body of empirical evidence documents a multitude of ways in which liberals and conservatives differ from each other in purviews of life with little direct connection to politics, from tastes in art to desire for closure and from disgust sensitivity to the tendency to pursue new information, but the central theme of the differences is a matter of debate. In this article, we argue that one organizing element of the many differences between liberals and conservatives is the nature of their physiological and psychological responses to features of the environment that are negative. Compared with liberals, conservatives tend to register greater physiological responses to such stimuli and also to devote more psychological resources to them. Operating from this point of departure, we suggest approaches for refining understanding of the broad relationship between political views and response to the negative. We conclude with a discussion of normative implications, stressing that identifying differences across ideological groups is not tantamount to declaring one ideology superior to another.

Physiological Arousal and Self-Reported Valence for Erotica Images Correlate with Sexual Policy Preferences

“…In both cases, levels of disgust are predictive of attitudes toward issues like gay marriage (Smith, Alford, Hibbing, Oxley & Hibbing 2012;Balzer & Jacobs 2011). Whereas reactions to disgust and other negative stimuli appear to be universally valenced (though differing in intensity; see Smith et al 2012;Hibbing, Smith & Alford 2014;Soroka & McAdams 2015), physiological responses to erotica are largely considered appetitive, though may be consciously evaluated both negatively and positively by different individuals. We posit the variance in these responses may help us understand preferences for four of the most contentious sex-related issues in modern American politics: abortion, gay marriage, sex education in schools, and premarital sex.…”

The Hajnal Line and Gene-Culture Coevolution in Northwest Europe

“…Two studies, one American and one English, have found that "conservatives" tend to have a larger right amygdala (Kanai et al, 2011;Schreiber et al, 2013). This has been seen as evidence of "fearfulness" on the political right (Hibbing et al, 2014). One could alternatively say that conservatives are less indifferent to distress in other people and that this political category is a proxy for an ethnic category-individuals of "old stock" northwest European descent.…”

Do People Naturally Cluster into Liberals and Conservatives?

“…Proponents of this view stress the "ancient and universal" reality of the liberalconservative division (Hibbing, Smith, & Alford 2014;see also Pinker 2002;Tuschman 2013), seeing the psychological origins of individuals' positions on this continuum as stemming from basic personality features such as openness and conscientiousness (Haidt 2012;Hibbing, Smith, & Alford 2013;Jost, Federico, & Napier 2009;Pinker 2002), conceptions of human nature (Pinker 2002;Tuschman 2013), moral foundations (Haidt 2012), negativity bias (Hibbing, Smith, & Alford 2014), and so on.…”

“…An interesting question is why this debate, which ought to be empirically tractable-how much ideological coherence is there?-persists. One possible contribution to the disagreement has to do with the description of the primary division in public opinion as "economic" versus "social," with various researchers finding different levels of correlation between these groups of issues in public opinion (Carmines, Ensley, & Wagner 2012;Feldman & Johnston 2014;Hibbing, Smith, & Alford 2014;Hussey 2012;Klar 2014;Verhulst, Hatemi, & Eaves 2012). While the "economic" grouping is often justified, involving various issues relating to income redistribution and the provision of benefits for the needy, the "social" grouping might cast too wide a net, including issues relating to sexual lifestyles, religious fundamentalism, race, immigration, or criminal justice.…”