Preliminary Support for a Generalized Arousal Model of Political Conservatism

Abstract

It is widely held that negative emotions such as threat, anxiety, and disgust represent the core psychological factors that enhance conservative political beliefs. We put forward an alternative hypothesis: that conservatism is fundamentally motivated by arousal, and that, in this context, the effect of negative emotion is due to engaging intensely arousing states. Here we show that study participants agreed more with right but not left-wing political speeches after being exposed to positive as well as negative emotion-inducing film-clips. No such effect emerged for neutral-content videos. A follow-up study replicated and extended this effect. These results are consistent with the idea that emotional arousal, in general, and not negative valence, specifically, may underlie political conservatism.

The Impact of Uncertainty, Threat, and Political Identity on Support for Political Compromise

“…The previous work examining the negativity bias has not addressed the issue of uncertainty, so it is unclear to what extent these effects may be driven by uncertain threats, specifically, rather than threat alone. The present work did not examine arousal directly, but based on the arousal hypothesis (Tritt et al, 2013) one might expect conservatives to respond more strongly to uncertainty in any situation (assuming uncertainty leads to arousal, which may not always be the case). This is not consistent with the present work: Conservatives here were less likely than liberals to respond to uncertainty in neutral or positive contexts.…”

“…Some alternative perspectives have been introduced, such as the idea that conservatives may be sensitive to emotionally arousing stimuli, regardless of valence. In a recent set of studies, researchers found that both positive and negative video clips that were highly arousing led to endorsement of conservative political views (Tritt, Inzlicht, & Peterson, 2013). Although a growing body of work suggests that conservatives and liberals may respond differently to emotional or affectively laden stimuli, there is ongoing debate about the exact nature of these differences.…”

“…If conservatives show a general negativity bias (Hibbing et al, 2014), we might expect conservatives to respond primarily to threat given that threat is more likely than uncertainty to be clearly negative in valence. The arousal hypothesis (Tritt et al, 2013) might suggest that conservatives would respond to uncertainty regardless of context (in both positive and negative situations), but it is worth noting that arousal and uncertainty are not necessarily the same thing. Uncertainty could be associated with arousal in some contexts, but uncertainty about mundane issues or in neutral contexts is less likely to lead to physiological arousal.…”

Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology

“…In addition, premarital and unconventional sex, sexually explicit literature and representation, and recreational drug use, although typically decried by conservatives (Dombrink 2006), are not obviously fear-inducing but rather appear to be more accurately construed as arousing. Finally, we have recently demonstrated that positive, like negative mood induction, can lead to conservative shifts in belief preference (Tritt et al 2013).…”

The Cognitive Costs of Being an Ideological Misfit

“…Ideological threats increase intolerance for members of outgroups and increased negativity towards outgroup members (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003;Greenberg et al, 1990;Hayes, Schimel, Williams, & Jahrig, 2007;. Furthermore, the evidence generally suggests that conservatives are more threat sensitive than liberals (see Hibbing, 2013;Jost et al, 2003;Tritt, Inzlicht, & Peterson, 2013; but see also Greenberg & Jonas, 2003).…”