Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats


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.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


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

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


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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mooney, C. Politics may be partly genetic, now what? CNN (2012).

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

  17. Vedantam, S., Lu, T., Boyle, T. & Vargas-Restrepo, C. Nature, nurture and your politics. NPR (2018).

  18. Roberts, D. Why mass shootings don't convince gun owners to support gun control. Vox (2018).

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

  20. Danzico, M. Fear factor: the science behind America's red/blue divide. BBC (2012).

  21. Hibbing, J. Is political difference biological? National Geographic (2017).

  22. Stewart, J. Paging Dr. Mandvi—political genes. The Daily Show (2008).

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, (2016).

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M. & Waggoner, P. D. Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Res. Pol. (2015).

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

Download references


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

Authors and Affiliations



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.

Corresponding author

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 4, 613–621 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing