Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats

Abstract

About a decade ago, a study documented that conservatives have stronger physiological responses to threatening stimuli than liberals. This work launched an approach 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 pre-registered 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 promises deeper insights into the emotional roots of ideology.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Assessment of a latent threat sensitivity dimension.
Fig. 2: Associations between threat sensitivity and social and economic conservatism.

Data availability

The data reported in this paper and in the Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Results can be found on our public OSF page at https://osf.io/d5g72/.

Code availability

The analysis codes for both the aggregate data and each individual replication, as well as the results reported in the Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Results can be found on our public OSF page at https://osf.io/d5g72/.

References

  1. 1.

    Oxley, D. R. et al. Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science 321, 1667–1670 (2008).

  2. 2.

    Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. & Sanford, R. N. The Authoritarian Personality (Haper & Brothers, 1950).

  3. 3.

    Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. & Sulloway, F. J. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol. Bull. 129, 339–375 (2003).

  4. 4.

    Wilson, G. D. The Psychology of Conservatism (Academic Press, 2013).

  5. 5.

    Altemeyer, B. Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-wing Authoritarianism (Jossey-Bass, 1988).

  6. 6.

    Aarøe, L., Petersen, M. B. & Arceneaux, K. The behavioral immune system shapes political intuitions: why and how individual differences in disgust sensitivity underlie opposition to immigration. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 111, 277–294 (2017).

  7. 7.

    Smith, K. B., Oxley, D., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R. & Hibbing, J. R. Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left–right political orientations. PLoS ONE 6, e25552 (2011).

  8. 8.

    Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B. & Alford, J. R. Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 297–307 (2014).

  9. 9.

    Laponce, J. A. Left and Right: The Topography of Political Perceptions (Univ. Toronto Press, 1981).

  10. 10.

    Nam, H. H., Jost, J. T., Kaggen, L., Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. & Van Bavel, J. J. Amygdala structure and the tendency to regard the social system as legitimate and desirable. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 133–138 (2018).

  11. 11.

    Schreiber, D. et al. Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in democrats and republicans. PLoS ONE 8, e52970 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Pedersen, W. S., Muftuler, L. T. & Larson, C. L. Conservatism and the neural circuitry of threat: economic conservatism predicts greater amygdala-BNST connectivity during periods of threat vs safety. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 13, 43–51 (2017).

  13. 13.

    Jost, J. T., Nam, H. H., Amodio, D. M. & Van Bavel, J. J. Political neuroscience: the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Pol. Psychol. 35, 3–42 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Lauka, A., McCoy, J. & Firat, R. B. Mass partisan polarization: measuring a relational concept. Am. Behav. Sci. 62, 107–126 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Mooney, C. Politics may be partly genetic, now what? CNN http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/politics-may-be-partly-genetic-now-what/ (2012).

  16. 16.

    Worthen, M. Is there such a thing as an authoritarian voter? The New York Times (15 December 2018).

  17. 17.

    Vedantam, S., Lu, T., Boyle, T. & Vargas-Restrepo, C. Nature, nurture and your politics. NPR https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654127241/nature-nurture-and-your-politics (2018).

  18. 18.

    Roberts, D. Why mass shootings don't convince gun owners to support gun control. Vox https://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9845146/mass-shootings-gun-control (2018).

  19. 19.

    Morgan, N. What's the difference between a liberal and a conservative audience? Forbes (16 October, 2014).

  20. 20.

    Danzico, M. Fear factor: the science behind America's red/blue divide. BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-16770593/fear-factor-the-science-behind-america-s-red-blue-divide (2012).

  21. 21.

    Hibbing, J. Is political difference biological? National Geographic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAc8MKTjC5E (2017).

  22. 22.

    Stewart, J. Paging Dr. Mandvi—political genes. The Daily Show http://www.cc.com/video-clips/44stzn/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-paging-dr--mandvi---political-genes (2008).

  23. 23.

    Miller, G. A., Rockstroh, B. S., Hamilton, H. K. & Yee, C. M. Psychophysiology as a core strategy in RDoC. Psychophysiology 53, 410–414 (2016).

  24. 24.

    Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. in Cognitive Neuroscience of Emotion (eds Lane, R. & Nadel, L.) 242–276 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).

  25. 25.

    Lang, P. J. Fear reduction and fear behavior: problems in treating a construct. in Research in Psychotherapy (ed. Shlien, J. M.) 90–102 (American Psychological Association, 1968).

  26. 26.

    LeDoux, J. E. & Pine, D. S. Using neuroscience to help understand fear and anxiety: a two-system framework. Am. J. Psychiatry 173, 1083–1093 (2016).

  27. 27.

    Butler, E. A., Gross, J. J. & Barnard, K. Testing the effects of suppression and reappraisal on emotional concordance using a multivariate multilevel model. Biol. Psychol. 98, 6–18 (2014).

  28. 28.

    Franco, A., Malhotra, N. & Simonovits, G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 345, 1502–1505 (2014).

  29. 29.

    Collaboration, O. S. et al. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Klein, R. A. et al. Investigating variation in replicability. Soc. Psychol. 45, 142–152 (2014).

  31. 31.

    Klein, R. A. et al. Many labs 2: investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 443–490 (2018).

  32. 32.

    Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 637–644 (2018).

  33. 33.

    Peterson, J. C., Smith, K. B. & Hibbing, J. R. Physiology and political beliefs: a response to Knoll, O‘Daniel, and Cusato. Res. Pol. 3, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016662892 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Arceneaux, K., Dunaway, J. & Soroka, S. Elites are people, too: the effects of threat sensitivity on policymakers’ spending priorities. PLoS ONE 13, e0193781 (2018).

  35. 35.

    Knoll, B. R., O’Daniel, T. J. & Cusato, B. Physiological responses and political behavior: three reproductions using a novel dataset. Res. Pol. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015621328 (2015).

  36. 36.

    Coe, C. M., Canelo, K. S., Vue, K., Hibbing, M. V. & Nicholson, S. P. The physiology of framing effects: threat sensitivity and the persuasiveness of political arguments. J. Politics 79, 1465–1468 (2017).

  37. 37.

    Simonsohn, U. Small telescopes: detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychol. Sci. 26, 559–569 (2015).

  38. 38.

    Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0021 (2017).

  39. 39.

    Chambers, C. The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017).

  40. 40.

    Patil, P., Peng, R. D. & Leek, J. A visual tool for defining reproducibility and replicability. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 650–652 (2019).

  41. 41.

    Dodd, M. D. et al. The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 640–649 (2012).

  42. 42.

    Wagenmakers, E.-J., Lodewyckx, T., Kuriyal, H. & Grasman, R. Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage–Dickey method. Cogn. Psychol. 60, 158–189 (2010).

  43. 43.

    Jeffreys, H. The Theory of Probability (Oxford Univ. Press, 1961).

  44. 44.

    Schnack, H. Brain and behavior: assessing reproducibility in association studies. eLife 8, e46757 (2019).

  45. 45.

    Vitriol, J. A., Larsen, E. G. & Ludeke, S. The generalizability of personality effects in politics. Eur. J. Pers. 33, 631–641 (2019).

  46. 46.

    Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M. & Waggoner, P. D. Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Res. Pol. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072 (2015).

  47. 47.

    Malka, A., Soto, C. J., Inzlicht, M. & Lelkes, Y. Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 106, 1031–1051 (2014).

  48. 48.

    Soroka, S., Fournier, P. & Nir, L. Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 18888–18892 (2019).

  49. 49.

    Lang, P. & Bradley, M. M. in Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment (eds Coan, J. A. & Allen, J. J. B.) 29–46 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).

  50. 50.

    Soeter, M. & Kindt, M. An abrupt transformation of phobic behavior after a post-retrieval amnesic agent. Biol. Psychiatry 78, 880–886 (2015).

  51. 51.

    Diemer, J., Alpers, G. W., Peperkorn, H. M., Shiban, Y. & Mühlberger, A. The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: a review of research in virtual reality. Front. Psychol. 6, 26 (2015).

  52. 52.

    Federico, C. M. & Malka, A. The contingent, contextual nature of the relationship between needs for security and certainty and political preferences: evidence and implications. Pol. Psychol. 39, 3–48 (2018).

  53. 53.

    Crawford, J. T. Are conservatives more sensitive to threat than liberals? It depends on how we define threat and conservatism. Soc. Cogn. 35, 354–373 (2017).

  54. 54.

    Malka, A., Lelkes, Y. & Holzer, N. in Politics of Social Psychology 126–146 (Psychology Press, 2017).

  55. 55.

    Hatemi, P. K., Crabtree, C. & Smith, K. B. Ideology justifies morality: political beliefs predict moral foundations. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 63, 788–806 (2019).

  56. 56.

    Hatemi, P. K. & Verhulst, B. Political attitudes develop independently of personality traits. PLoS ONE 10, e0118106 (2015).

  57. 57.

    Ludeke, S., Tagar, M. R. & DeYoung, C. G. Not as different as we want to be: attitudinally consistent trait desirability leads to exaggerated associations between personality and sociopolitical attitudes. Pol. Psychol. 37, 125–135 (2016).

  58. 58.

    Gruszczynski, M. W., Balzer, A., Jacobs, C. M., Smith, K. B. & Hibbing, J. R. The physiology of political participation. Pol. Behav. 35, 135–152 (2013).

  59. 59.

    Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R. & Hibbing, J. R. Linking genetics and political attitudes: reconceptualizing political ideology. Pol. Psychol. 32, 369–397 (2011).

  60. 60.

    Molenkamp, B. Vsrrp98 Manual, Version 8.0 (Univ. Amsterdam, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Smith, J. Hibbing, M. Hibbing and the other authors of Oxley et al.1 for support of this project and for providing the original stimuli used in direct replication. We also thank N. Anspach, M. Boyer, J. Jennings, S. Kunst, A. M. Alvarez, E. Fried, I. Rebasso and D. van de Wetering for assistance during the data collection. M. Brandt, J. Bullock, J. Crawford, C. Dawes, C. Federico, S. Feldman, J. Fowler, C. Johnston, J. Jost, L. Laustsen, Y. Lelkes, M. Bang Petersen, J. Mansell, M. Osmundsen, V. Parma, K. Smith, S. Soroka, B. Spruyt, M. Tessler and J. Tybur, as well as panellists at the American Political Science Association meeting (2018), Midwest Political Science Association meeting (2017), Dutch Political Psychology meeting, University of Mannheim, Free University Amsterdam, Politicologenetmaal (2018), Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Amsterdam Interdisciplinary Centre for Emotion and Hot Politics Lab, provided helpful comments and suggestions during this project. This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 750443 (B.N.B.), the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 759079 (G.S.), the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (B.N.B.) and the Behavioral Foundations Laboratory at Temple University (K.A.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

B.N.B. and K.A. designed the study and contributed to data collection, analyses and write-up. G.S. contributed to the analyses and write-up. C.G. contributed to the data collection and write-up.

Correspondence to Bert N. Bakker.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Aisha Bradshaw.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, results and references.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bakker, B.N., Schumacher, G., Gothreau, C. et al. Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats. Nat Hum Behav (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0823-z

Download citation