The Physiology of Framing Effects: Threat Sensitivity and the Persuasiveness of Political Arguments

Coe, Chelsea M.; Canelo, Kayla S.; Vue, Kau; Hibbing, Matthew V.; Nicholson, Stephen P.

doi:10.1086/692737

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No statistical methods were used to pre-determine sample size but our sample size is larger than those reported in previous publications. 1 , 7 , 26 – 28 , 33 Specific periods of data collection were: between October 27, 2014 and December 12, 2014 (protocol 1: N=105); June 24, 2015 and November 28, 2016 (protocol 2: N=106); and February 16, 2017 and January 30, 2018 (protocol 3: N=141). The full sample consists of students and non-student adults (N=352).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kevin Smith and John Hibbing — two of the lead authors of the Oxley et al paper — acknowledged the need for replication, as they wrote that the question whether their findings replicate cannot be known “until other laboratories have weighed in” 25 (p.3, emphasis added). The need for a direct replication is even more pressing since — to the best of our knowledge — the only published conceptual replications offer conflicting conclusions 26 – 28 — for details see Supplementary Results p.33.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

About a decade ago a study documented that conservatives have stronger physiological responses to threatening stimuli than liberals. This work launched a paradigm aimed at uncovering the biological roots of ideology. Despite wide-ranging scientific and popular impact, independent laboratories have not replicated the study. We conducted a preregistered direct replication (N=202) and conceptual replications in the United States (N=352) and the Netherlands (N=81). Our analyses do not support the conclusions of the original study, nor do we find evidence for broader claims regarding the effect of disgust and the existence of a physiological trait. Rather than studying unconscious responses as the "real" predispositions, alignment between conscious and unconscious responses promise deeper insights in the emotional roots of ideology. Main In a study published by Science, Oxley et al. 1 demonstrate that individuals who express conservative political attitudes (e.g., a preference for tradition, clear group boundaries, and hierarchies) have stronger physiological reactions to threatening stimuli than those who express liberal views. One of the authors' explanations for this association is that "political attitudes and varying physiological responses to threat may both derive from neural activity patterns" (p.1669), 1 suggesting a biological basis for the robust, positive correlation between political conservatism and self-reported measures of sensitivity to uncertainty and threat 2-5. Research by others, including the Oxley, et al. research team, demonstrates that conservatives also have stronger physiological responses to disgusting stimuli than liberals do 6, 7. These findings motivated members of the Oxley, et al. research team to further elaborate that conservatism is linked to a more expansive form of "negativity bias" at a physiological level 9. This research helped usher in a new paradigm in psychology and political science that offers a provocative perspective on the biological roots of the centuries-old liberal/conservative divide 8. It implies that psychological traits, such as "threat sensitivity", "disgust sensitivity", and "negativity bias" can be captured in a straightforward and unobtrusive way with physiological reactions, and that these "physiological traits" have a direct and unmediated effect on

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another example is need for cognition (i.e., the extent to which people believe they enjoy thinking; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), where advertising a product as relevant for those enjoy (vs. don't enjoy) intensive thinking enhances the appeal for those higher in this trait (Bakker, 1999; See et al, 2009). Other research has observed similar effects for dominance orientation (i.e., assertive messages for those high in dominance vs. diffident messages for those low; Moon, 2002), sensation seeking (i.e., unusual message structures for high sensation seekers vs. normal message structures for those low; Palmgreen et al, 2002; Self & Findley, 2010), future orientation (i.e., distant advantages/immediate disadvantages for those high in future orientation vs. immediate advantages/distant disadvantages for those low; Strathman et al, 1994; Tangari & Smith, 2012), and many other individual identities (e.g., Coe et al, 2017; Mannetti et al, 2010; Williams‐Piehota et al, 2004, for a review, see Dijkstra, 2008). Indeed, even self‐esteem has been effectively targeted: Advertising nonidealized (vs. idealized) content is more effective for consumers who view themselves unfavorably (Bian & Wang, 2015).…”

Section: Personalized Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion

Teeny¹,

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most reliable and impactful methods for enhancing a persuasive appeal is to match an aspect of the proposal (i.e., its content, source, or the setting in which it is delivered) to an aspect of the consumer receiving it. This personalized matching in persuasion (also called tailoring, targeting, customizing, or personalizing) comprises a robust and growing literature. In the present review, we describe different types of persuasive matches, the primary characteristics of people who are targeted, and the key psychological mechanisms underlying the impact of matching. Importantly, although most research on personalized matching has concluded that matching is good for persuasion, we also describe and explain instances where it has produced negative (i.e., “backfire”) effects. That is, more than just the conclusion “matching is good” that many researchers have drawn, we analyze when and why it is good and when and why it can be ineffective—insight that can benefit marketers and consumers alike in understanding how personally matched appeals can impact attitudes and ultimately behavior.

show abstract

“…As discussed in Online Appendix Section 1, we identified seven existing studies of lay people that included measures of EDA responses to negative images and political ideology: Aarøe et al 2017, Coe et al (2017), Dodd et al (2012), Knoll et al (2015), Oxley et al (2008), Petersen et al (2015) and Smith et al (2012). Table 1 provides an overview of the studies, including their country location, sample size, types of images included (and those used to generate their measure of threat-sensitivity), the specific method for analyzing the physiological data, the included ideological measures, as well as our tests of the reliability and validity of the measures.…”

Section: Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychophysiology of Political Ideology: Replications, Reanalysis and Recommendations

Osmundsen¹,

Hendry²,

Laustsen³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a large-scale, empirical evaluation of the psychophysiological correlates of political ideology and, in particular, the claim that conservatives react with higher levels of electrodermal activity to threatening stimuli than liberals. We (1) conduct two large replications of this claim, using locally representative samples of Danes and Americans; (2) re-analyze all published studies and evaluate their reliability and validity; and (3) test several features to enhance the validity of psychophysiological measures and offer a number of recommendations. Overall, we find little empirical support for the claim. This is caused by significant reliability and validity problems related to measuring threat-sensitivity using electrodermal activity. When assessed reliably, electrodermal activity in the replications and published studies captures individual differences in the physiological changes associated with attention shifts, which are unrelated to ideology. In contrast to psychophysiological reactions, self-reported emotional reactions to threatening stimuli are reliably associated with ideology.

show abstract

The Physiology of Framing Effects: Threat Sensitivity and the Persuasiveness of Political Arguments

Cited by 13 publications

References 13 publications

Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats

Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats

A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion

The Psychophysiology of Political Ideology: Replications, Reanalysis and Recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About