Interesting... study of people with strong political views:
"A couple of months later, the same participants underwent tests for their so-called startle reflexes. The researchers measured levels of skin moisture as indicators of stress and anxiety for each participant as he or she looked at threatening images, including a large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it. Similarly, participants also viewed three non-threatening images (a bunny, a bowl of fruit and a happy child) placed within a series of other images.
"The researchers also measured the intensity of the participants' eye blinks in response to sudden, jarring noises. Harder blinks are linked with a heightened state of fear, the researchers say.
"Participants who scored high on the skin and blinking stress tests also tended to support military spending, warrantless searches, death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and the concept of Biblical truth. And they tended to oppose pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.
"Those who were less startled by threatening images and noises were more likely to favor foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control."
Full story HERE.
Discuss?
I am not exactly sure where the "paranoia" is coming in.
a bunny, a bowl of fruit and a happy child
AAAAAAH!!!!! Make it stop! Make it stop!
I think people will always react badly to fear. Remember the culture of paranoia after 9/11? Even the most pacifistic people were scared crapless, then as most fear reflexes, that turned into anger and hate. It's the same reason we stomp a spider that lands on us, but we often let one going about its business live. We are angry that the spider scared us, and lash out to reduce the fear and reassert control of the situation.
Fearful people always make irrational descisions. I remember an acquaintance staying up at night convinced that she was going to contract anthrax from her mail when that whole thing went down. She wouldn't even go to her mailbox. I told her there were a lot more likely ways to meet her end, but that didn't help much. Fear is an irrational emotion.
Fear is an irrational emotion.
More accurately, I think fear itself is often rational -- I fear to go out in the middle of the interstate and take a nap -- but it most often spurs us to make irrational decisions. Point taken, though.
|
Patrick has an interesting point, which reminded me of this article I saw in the Washington Post. Negative ads are the pinnicle of the politics of fear.
Patrick has an interesting point, which reminded me of this article I saw in the Washington Post. Negative ads are the pinnicle of the politics of fear.
But you have to admit, negative ads aren't always about making you afraid of the other guy. Many negative ads, from both sides, just point out inaccuracies or half-truths about the other guy's policies. That's not making you "afraid" of the other guy, just skeptical of what he says.
It's hard to take a study like this seriously when you can see the bias in it. I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the scientists who ran this study.
|
|
Patrick has an interesting point, which reminded me of this article I saw in the Washington Post. Negative ads are the pinnicle of the politics of fear.But you have to admit, negative ads aren't always about making you afraid of the other guy. Many negative ads, from both sides, just point out inaccuracies or half-truths about the other guy's policies. That's not making you "afraid" of the other guy, just skeptical of what he says.
I don't know. I consider anything that makes me not want to trust a person as designed to make me fear them, even if on a subtle level.
It's hard to take a study like this seriously when you can see the bias in it. I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the scientists who ran this study.
It's hard to take comments like this seriously when you can see the bias in it...
I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the commentator above based on his dismissal of any study that goes against his beliefs.Sheesh man, I hope you readily dismiss any and all studies if they show to have any kind of bias towards any side of the political spectrum, not just those you disagree with.
It's hard to take a study like this seriously when you can see the bias in it. I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the scientists who ran this study.
I'd call them sociologists, not scientists (the article just calls them "reseachers") -- this is not a hard scientific study because it relies on surveys and self-reported opinions. NSF, lamentably, does fund some "soft science" (stuff like this), in addition to what I'd consider "real" science.
Just felt the need to point that out.
It's hard to take a study like this seriously when you can see the bias in it. I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the scientists who ran this study.It's hard to take comments like this seriously when you can see the bias in it...
I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the commentator above based on his dismissal of any study that goes against his beliefs.
Sheesh man, I hope you readily dismiss any and all studies if they show to have any kind of bias towards any side of the political spectrum, not just those you disagree with.
I wouldn't have accepted the results even if they had been right-wing oriented either. The study has a lot of problems with it. BTW, keep your snarky comments to yourself please.
I wouldn't have accepted the results even if they had been right-wing oriented either. The study has a lot of problems with it. BTW, keep your snarky comments to yourself please.It's hard to take a study like this seriously when you can see the bias in it. I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the scientists who ran this study.It's hard to take comments like this seriously when you can see the bias in it...
I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the commentator above based on his dismissal of any study that goes against his beliefs.
Sheesh man, I hope you readily dismiss any and all studies if they show to have any kind of bias towards any side of the political spectrum, not just those you disagree with.
Yet you felt compelled to point out the perceived political bias of the study, something I have a feeling you wouldn't have done if it truly had been a slightly right-wing oriented study. I might be wrong about that, but I doubt it. That's why I chose to comment on your post. And I'll use all the snark I so choose to if I feel a post warrants it, thank you very much.
Yet you felt compelled to point out the perceived political bias of the study, something I have a feeling you wouldn't have done if it truly had been a slightly right-wing oriented study. I might be wrong about that, but I doubt it. That's why I chose to comment on your post. And I'll use all the snark I so choose to if I feel a post warrants it, thank you very much.I wouldn't have accepted the results even if they had been right-wing oriented either. The study has a lot of problems with it. BTW, keep your snarky comments to yourself please.It's hard to take a study like this seriously when you can see the bias in it. I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the scientists who ran this study.It's hard to take comments like this seriously when you can see the bias in it...
I bet I can tell you what the political leanings are of the commentator above based on his dismissal of any study that goes against his beliefs.
Sheesh man, I hope you readily dismiss any and all studies if they show to have any kind of bias towards any side of the political spectrum, not just those you disagree with.
If you want to reply to my posts, keep them out. If you want to act like
a child, bother someone else.
If you want to reply to my posts, keep them out. If you want to act like a child, bother someone else.
How very mature of you, calling me someone who acts like a child...
I didn't call you any names or the like, I just used your own words to dismiss your comment out of hand just as you had dismissed the study out of hand.I then made a postulation based on a whole slew of your comments from other threads with a political subject. To me it seems like you are very fond of stating your opinion as a universal truth. Hence why I pointed out that your own words could be used to dismiss your own comment.
Bias or not, I'd actually like to know why you think the results of the study showed what they did. One can have a bias in making a study, but if the study itself is done under acceptable circumstances and without an inherent bias in e.g. any questions asked, then the results are still valid.
I agree that the number of test subjects should be much higher. This might just have been a preliminary study to find out if a certain trend seems to be prevalent. A larger study can then be made to see if this trend is true among a larger number of subjects.
Why don't we look for a copy of the actual study? Then we can look at the methodology and decide if it's even vaguely useful, instead of jumping to conclusions one way or the other and then sniping at each another when it turns out we jumped in different directions.
|
It doesn't say in the article how the individuals tested were selected for "strong political beliefs" and what that actually meant - i.e. what criteria and selection methods were used. It's an interesting finding nevertheless, though I think it lumps together certain things as physiology that might be construed as more culture. It also doesn't talk about the individuals' ages or backgrounds. So it begs a lot of questions. That said, I would not be surprised if physiology has some transalation to general political views, but I also think it is probably a lot more complicated than that (which I think they also acknowledge in the report).
|
|
The study involved 46 Nebraska residents, chosen for having strong political beliefs from a larger population of randomly selected individuals.A couple of months later, the same participants underwent tests for their so-called startle reflexes. The researchers measured levels of skin moisture as indicators of stress and anxiety for each participant as he or she looked at threatening images...The researchers also measured the intensity of the participants' eye blinks in response to sudden, jarring noises. Harder blinks are linked with a heightened state of fear, the researchers say. Participants who scored high on the skin and blinking stress tests also tended to support military spending, warrantless searches, death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and the concept of Biblical truth. And they tended to oppose pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.
So all the study really proves is that people in Nebraska with strong political views have certain physiological reactions. Since the people involved were already know to have strong political views, it cannot be said for certain that their reactions have any connection with their political views. To make this study more accurate and belivable, I would start with an equal number of people who have strong political views and who are apathetic towards politics, and they would be randomly selected from around the country by a computer that was given only one criteria, that all sections of the country be equally weighted. Then if we found that those particular responses were more common with people who had the strong believes listed than in the apathetic "control" group across all regions of the country, we could begin to say that there is a causal effect. Until then, we really can't make anything from this study.
Maybe fear is similar to anger when influencing decision making.
|
|
Why don't we look for a copy of the actual study? Then we can look at the methodology and decide if it's even vaguely useful, instead of jumping to conclusions one way or the other and then sniping at each another when it turns out we jumped in different directions.
Here is the best I could get. It's the executive summery, you have to pay to access the rest of the article.
Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits
Douglas R. Oxley,1* Kevin B. Smith,1* John R. Alford,2 Matthew V. Hibbing,3 Jennifer L. Miller,1 Mario Scalora,4 Peter K. Hatemi,5 John R. Hibbing1Although political views have been thought to arise largely from individuals' experiences, recent research suggests that they may have a biological basis. We present evidence that variations in political attitudes correlate with physiological traits. In a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War. Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm-violator) threats.
1 Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
2 Department of Political Science, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251, USA.
3 Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
4 Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
5 Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
I would just note that the majority of the authors involved are political science people, rather than sociology or psychcology people.
|
|
If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling. Remember how homosexuals were worried that if a "gay gene" were discovered and isolated, it might lead to a holocaust of babys carrying that gene being aborted? Call me crazy, but that could very well happen here as well, especially in more authoritarian countries like Russia and China. Imagine some would be dictator pondering the implications of being able to kill off disenters before they are ever born. It almost sounds like a really bad (or really good) sci-fi movie.
If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling. Remember how homosexuals were worried that if a "gay gene" were discovered and isolated, it might lead to a holocaust of babys carrying that gene being aborted? Call me crazy, but that could very well happen here as well, especially in more authoritarian countries like Russia and China. Imagine some would be dictator pondering the implications of being able to kill off disenters before they are ever born. It almost sounds like a really bad (or really good) sci-fi movie.
But in places like the U.S., consider who is more likely to support abortion.
If you want to reply to my posts, keep them out. If you want to act like a child, bother someone else.How very mature of you, calling me someone who acts like a child...
I didn't call you any names or the like, I just used your own words to dismiss your comment out of hand just as you had dismissed the study out of hand.
I then made a postulation based on a whole slew of your comments from other threads with a political subject. To me it seems like you are very fond of stating your opinion as a universal truth. Hence why I pointed out that your own words could be used to dismiss your own comment.Bias or not, I'd actually like to know why you think the results of the study showed what they did. One can have a bias in making a study, but if the study itself is done under acceptable circumstances and without an inherent bias in e.g. any questions asked, then the results are still valid.
I agree that the number of test subjects should be much higher. This might just have been a preliminary study to find out if a certain trend seems to be prevalent. A larger study can then be made to see if this trend is true among a larger number of subjects.
I'm just stating my opinion on these subjects. I don't mean for it to sound like it's the universal truth. I don't have the answers for everything. If I did, I'd be rich.
Now to the study
1) Well,as you pointed out, not enough people in the study.
2) It's strange to me that on the list of issues their isn't a mixture of results. People who scored high tend to support all of these conservative issues? Yet, people who were calmer, tended to support all the liberal issues listed? The results sound a little homogeneous to me.
Good studies (scientific ones at least) try to eliminate all bias from them.
Is it really that surprising that people who are startled easily tend to favor a protection-first mindset?
Since a good portion of the contributors are political scientists their framework for that is the political arena. Psychologists and sociologists usually try to debug bias in their studies. The study was way too small, and the selection criteria 'subjective'. IMO, the study is biased towards its 'expected' conclusion.
|
|
If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling. Remember how homosexuals were worried that if a "gay gene" were discovered and isolated, it might lead to a holocaust of babys carrying that gene being aborted? Call me crazy, but that could very well happen here as well, especially in more authoritarian countries like Russia and China. Imagine some would be dictator pondering the implications of being able to kill off disenters before they are ever born. It almost sounds like a really bad (or really good) sci-fi movie.But in places like the U.S., consider who is more likely to support abortion.
And I thought it was air conditioning that was causing the rise of conservatism.
|
I'm able to see the full article.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5896/1667
Douglas R. Oxley,1* Kevin B. Smith,1* John R. Alford,2 Matthew V. Hibbing,3 Jennifer L. Miller,1 Mario Scalora,4 Peter K. Hatemi,5 John R. Hibbing1{dagger}
Although political views have been thought to arise largely from individuals' experiences, recent research suggests that they may have a biological basis. We present evidence that variations in political attitudes correlate with physiological traits. In a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War. Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm-violator) threats.
1 Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
2 Department of Political Science, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251, USA.
3 Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
4 Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
5 Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
* These authors contributed equally to this work. Back
{dagger} To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jhibbing@unl.edu
The nature and source of political attitudes have been the subject of much study (1–3). Traditionally, such attitudes were believed to be built from sensible, unencumbered reactions to environmental events (4), but more recent research emphasizes the built-in, almost "automated" quality of many political responses (5), which has been suggested to be based in brain activation variations in limbic regions (6–8). The research task is now to determine why some people seem primed to adopt certain political attitudes, whereas others appear primed to adopt quite different attitudes. For example, although images and reminders of the terrorist attacks of 9-11 produce an aggregate shift in political views (9, 10), the reasons for individual variability in the degree of attitudinal shifts are unknown.
One possibility is that people vary in general physiology and that certain of these variations encourage the adoption of particular political attitudes. Broad, physiologically relevant traits such as feelings of disgust and fear of disease have been suggested to be related to political attitudes (11, 12), and political beliefs can be predicted by observing brain activation patterns in response to unanticipated events, such as one letter of the alphabet appearing on a computer screen when the respondent expected a different letter (13). A connection between self-reports of felt threat and political attitudes has also been identified in previous research (14–19).
The physiology of response to a perceived threat is an attractive topic of investigation because an appropriate response to environmental threat is necessary for long-term survival and because perceived threat produces a variety of reasonably well-mapped, physically instantiated responses (20). If the threat is abrupt, a defensive cascade of linked, rapid extensor-flexor movement occurs throughout the body within 30 to 50 ms (21), presumably to reduce vital-organ vulnerability (e.g., eye blink and retraction of the head). Less immediately, perceived threat causes signals from the sensory cortex to be relayed to the thalamus and ultimately to the brain stem, resulting in heightened noradrenergic activity in the locus ceruleus (22). Acetylcholine, acting primarily through the amygdala but also through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (23), stimulates release of epinephrine, which in turn leads to activation of the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system. Though these basic response patterns apply in all people, individual sensitivity to perceived threat varies widely (24).
To test the hypothesis that variations in physical sensitivity to threat are associated with political beliefs, in May 2007, we conducted a random telephone sample of the population of Lincoln, Nebraska. Participants were screened [see supporting online material (SOM)] to identify those with strong political attitudes (regardless of the content of those attitudes), and qualifying individuals were invited to a lab in the city. During the first visit, the 46 participants completed a survey instrument (see SOM) ascertaining their political beliefs, personality traits, and demographic characteristics. During the second session, about 2 months after the first, participants were attached to physiological equipment, making it possible to measure skin conductance and orbicularis oculi startle blink electromyogram (EMG) response (25).
Skin conductance "has been closely linked with the psychological concepts of emotion, arousal, and attention" and "provides relatively direct and undiluted representation of sympathetic activity" (26). Arousal causes increased moisture in the outer layers of the skin that in turn enhances conductivity, making it possible to assess sympathetic activation by recording changes in the level of skin conductance. Each participant was shown three separate threatening images (a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it) interspersed among a sequence of 33 images. After logging the data to normalize the distribution, we computed the change in the mean level of skin conductance (SCL) from the previous interstimulus interval (10 s) to the stimulus of interest (20 s). This calculation isolates the change in skin conductance induced by the stimulus and reduces the effects of baseline variations across participants (27). We computed the mean change in SCL induced by the three threatening stimuli and determined whether this mean difference was related to variations in preference for socially protective policies (described below). Similar procedures were conducted for three nonthreatening stimuli shown during the series (a bunny, a bowl of fruit, and a happy child).
The other physiological measure was orbicularis oculi startle blink response, an involuntary response to a startling noise. Harder blinks (higher blink amplitudes) are indicative of a heightened "fear state" (28). The threatening stimulus was a loud, standardized level of white noise heard by participants (through headphones) at seven unexpected moments while they were looking at a computer screen containing nothing but a focus point. As is common practice (28), we first took the logarithm of the data and then computed participants' average blink amplitude. Because surprising subjects with a sudden, jarring noise is likely to affect all physiological indicators, we conducted the startle portion of the study after completing separate tests on skin conductance. The order of the images and the timing of the auditory startle were randomized once, and then that program was presented to all participants.
The survey instrument contained a battery of items asking respondents whether they agreed with, disagreed with, or were uncertain toward 28 individual political concepts—the well-known Wilson-Patterson format (29). We identified particular positions on 18 of these policy issues as those most likely to be held by individuals particularly concerned with protecting the interests of the participants' group, defined as the United States in mid-2007, from threats. These positions are support for military spending, warrantless searches, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer, and Biblical truth; and opposition to pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights, and pornography. We do not label these collections of policy positions as either "liberal" or "conservative" because we measure only one aspect of ideologies and exclude other aspects such as positions on economic issues. We take no stance on whether these positions actually promote the stability and cohesion of the social unit; we only assert that, given the common frames of the modern American policy, those most concerned about social protection will tend to be attracted to the particular policy positions listed.
We computed a summary measure of each participant's stances on the 18 political issues such that those positions suggesting a concern for protecting the social unit were given higher scores. To test the skin conductance portion of our analysis, we divided participants into two groups according to their level of concern for protecting the social unit: those above the median and those below. Participants whose policy positions suggest more concern for protecting the social unit were distinguished by an increase in skin conductance when threatening stimuli were presented (Fig. 1). Those whose positions suggest less concern for protecting the social unit, by contrast, were mostly unaffected by those same stimuli and the difference in these two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.05). When participants were shown nonthreatening stimuli, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.77) in skin conductance changes between the two groups (Fig. 1).
Figure 1 Fig. 1. Changes in skin conductance (in microsiemens) resulting from the viewing of threatening and nonthreatening images for high supporters and low supporters of socially protective policies. Difference of means tests: threatening stimuli t = 1.98, P = 0.05; nonthreatening stimuli t = 0.284, P = 0.77, two-tailed tests. All skin conductance data have been logged. Support for policies is measured by self-reported positions on 18 issues relevant to group life (see text), with "high support" including those participants above the median of support and "low support" including those participants below the median. [View Larger Version of this Image (75K GIF file)]
Uncontrolled, bivariate results have the potential to mislead. We therefore regressed each participant's summary level of support for socially protective political policies on changes in skin conductance as well as on four sociodemographic variables commonly used as predictors of political attitudes: gender, age, income, and education (race and ethnicity were not controlled because all but one participant was self-identified as white and non-Hispanic). With the effects of these sociodemographic variables controlled, the effect of increases in skin conductance when viewing threatening stimuli was positive and significant (P < 0.01), with a large standardized regression coefficient (0.377) (Table 1). When nonthreatening images were viewed, however, changes in skin conductance appeared to be unrelated to political attitudes pertaining to protecting the social order. In this multiple regression model, the standardized regression coefficient for skin conductance change was statistically insignificant (P = 0.96), small, and slightly negative (–0.007) (Table 2).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 1. Explaining support for socially protective policies with physiological reactions to threatening images. Results of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with support for socially protective policies (possible range from 0 to 18), with higher numbers indicating attitudes more supportive of policies thought to protect the social unit regressed on five explanatory variables: gender (0 = male; 1 = female), age (in years), education (six categories ranging from "did not finish high school" to "college degree plus"), income (six categories ranging from an annual salary of less than $20,000 to an annual salary of more than $100,000), and changes in skin conductance level (SCL) occasioned by the viewing of threatening images. Descriptive statistics on the variables and further discussion of the regression techniques are available in the SOM. *P < 0.05, two-tailed t test.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 2. Explaining support for socially protective policies with physiological reactions to nonthreatening images. Results of regression (OLS) with support for socially protective policies regressed on five explanatory variables. Variables are the same as those described for Table 1 except that skin conductance (SCL) is the change in skin conductance occasioned by the viewing of nonthreatening images. Descriptive statistics and further discussion of the regression techniques are available in the SOM. *P < 0.05, two-tailed t test.
A further test of this pattern is possible when, for each participant, mean skin conductance change occasioned by the viewing of the nonthreatening stimuli is subtracted from mean skin conductance change when viewing the threatening stimuli. When this variable was entered into the multiple regression with age, income, education, and gender, it was in the expected direction (greater relative reaction to threatening stimuli correlates with more support for socially protective policies), sizable (standardized regression coefficient = 0.28), and statistically significant (P = 0.04). Full results of this analysis are presented in the SOM.
Startle blink EMG responses habituate (28) (Fig. 2), but the tendency for high blink amplitudes to correlate with respondents supportive of protective policies was consistent across the exercise and was also apparent for the overall means (Fig. 3). Although the difference was not significant in the bivariate analysis, when the sociodemographic controls were added to better specify the model, the coefficient for blink amplitude was again in the predicted (positive) direction, sizable (standardized regression coefficient = 0.286), and statistically significant (P = 0.03) (Table 3).
Figure 2 Fig. 2. Three-event moving average of blink amplitude (in millivolts) in response to seven startling noises administered at unexpected times during the absence of visual stimuli for high supporters and low supporters of socially protective politics. Lines represent mean response for the two groups for each cluster of three responses and are designed to show habituation. All blink amplitude data have been converted to logarithm values so readings less than 0 are possible. Support for policies is as described in Fig. 1. [View Larger Version of this Image (39K GIF file)]
Figure 3 Fig. 3. Mean blink amplitude in response to all seven startling noises for high supporters and low supporters of socially protective politics. Bars are mean blink amplitudes (in millivolts). Difference of means tests for overall means: t = 1.64, P = 0.10. Support for policies is as described in Fig. 1. [View Larger Version of this Image (49K GIF file)]
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 3. Explaining support for socially protective policies with blink amplitude in response to startling noises. Results of regression (OLS) with support for socially protective policies regressed on five explanatory variables. Variables are the same as those described for Table 1 except that mean amplitude is the mean blink amplitude for each participant following seven startle events (see Fig. 1). Descriptive statistics and further discussion of the regression techniques are available in the SOM, as is further discussion of the startle technique and measurement procedures. *P < 0.05, two-tailed t test.
Our data reveal a correlation between physiological responses to threat and political attitudes but do not permit firm conclusions concerning the specific causal processes at work. Particular physiological responses to threat could cause the adoption of certain political attitudes, or the holding of particular political attitudes could cause people to respond in a certain physiological way to environmental threats, but neither of these seems probable. More likely is that physiological responses to generic threats and political attitudes on policies related to protecting the social order may both derive from a common source. Parents could both socialize their children to hold certain political attitudes and condition them to respond in a certain way to threatening stimuli, but conditioning involuntary reflex responses takes immediate and sustained reinforcement and punishment, and it is unlikely that this conditioning varies systematically across political beliefs.
Alternatively, political attitudes and varying physiological responses to threat may both derive from neural activity patterns, perhaps those surrounding the amygdala. There is a connection between localized activation of the amygdala and aversive startle response (30). Amygdala activity is also crucial in shaping responses to socially threatening images (31, 32) and may be connected to political predispositions. Indeed, given that political and social attitudes are heritable (33–36) and that amygdala activity also has been traced to genetics (37–40), genetic variation relevant to amygdala activity could affect both physiological responses to threat and political attitudes bearing on threats to the social order.
Our findings suggest that political attitudes vary with physiological traits linked to divergent manners of experiencing and processing environmental threats. Consequently, our research provides one possible explanation for both the lack of malleability in the beliefs of individuals with strong political convictions and for the associated ubiquity of political conflict.
References and Notes
* 1. A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, D. E. Stokes, The American Voter (John Wiley, New York, 1960).
* 2. P. E. Converse, in Ideology and Discontent, D.E. Apter, Ed. (Free Press, New York, 1964).
* 3. J. R. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1992).
* 4. B. I. Page, R. Y. Shapiro, The Rational Public (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992).
* 5. M. Lodge, C. Taber, Pol. Psychol. 26, 455 (2005). [CrossRef]
* 6. G. E. Marcus, W. R. Neuman, M. Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000).
* 7. R. McDermott, Perspect. Polit. 2, 691 (2004).
* 8. D. Westen, The Political Brain (Public Affairs, New York, 2007).
* 9. M. J. Landau et al., Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 1136 (2004).[Abstract]
* 10. S. Fahmy, S. Cho, W. Wanta, Y. Song, Vis. Commun. Q. 13, 3 (2006). [CrossRef]
* 11. J. Faulkner, M. Schaller, J. H. Park, L. A. Duncan, Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 7, 333 (2004). [CrossRef]
* 12. C. D. Navarrete, D. M. T. Fessler, Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 270 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI]
* 13. D. M. Amodio, J. T. Jost, S. L. Master, C. M. Lee, Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1246 (2007). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 14. J. T. Jost, J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski, F. J. Sulloway, Psychol. Bull. 129, 339 (2003). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 15. J. T. Jost, Am. Psychol. 61, 651 (2006). [CrossRef] [Medline]
* 16. L. Huddy, S. Feldman, C. Taber, G. Lahav, Am. J. Pol. Sci. 49, 593 (2005). [CrossRef] [ISI]
* 17. S. Feldman, Pol. Psychol. 24, 593 (2003). [CrossRef]
* 18. K. Stenner, The Authoritarian Dynamic (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2005).
* 19. F. Pratto, J. Sidanius, L. M. Stallworth, B. F. Malle, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 741 (1994). [CrossRef] [ISI]
* 20. W. B. Cannon, Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage (Appleton, New York, 1915).
* 21. M. M. Bradley, P. J. Lang, in Handbook of Psychophysiology, J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, G. G. Berntson, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2007).
* 22. M. E. Thase, R. H. Howland, in Handbook of Depression, E. E. Beckham and W. R. Leber, Eds. (Guilford, New York, 1995).
* 23. E. Lemche et al., Hum. Brain Mapp. 27, 623 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 24. G. H. Grosser, H. Wechser, M. Greenblatt, The Threat of Impending Disaster (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971).
* 25. Materials and methods are described in the SOM.
* 26. M. E. Dawson, A. M. Shell, D. L. Filion, in Handbook of Psychophysiology, J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, G. G. Berntson, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2007).
* 27. A. Miller, J. Long, in Developmental Psychophysiology, L. A. Schmidt, S. J. Segalowitz, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2007).
* 28. P. J. Lang, M. M. Bradley, B. N. Cuthbert, Psychol. Rev. 97, 377 (1990). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 29. G. D. Wilson, J. R. Patterson, Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 7, 264 (1968). [Medline]
* 30. S. Anders, M. Lotze, M. Erb, W. Grodd, Hum. Brain Mapp. 23, 200 (2004). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 31. C. L. Larson et al., Biol. Psychiatry 60, 410 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 32. D. A. Fitzgerald, M. Angstad, L. M. Jelsone, P. J. Nathan, K. L. Phan, Neuroimage 30, 1441 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 33. N. G. Martin et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 4364 (1986).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
* 34. L. Eaves et al., Twin Res. 2, 62 (1999). [CrossRef] [Medline]
* 35. J. R. Alford, C. L. Funk, J. R. Hibbing, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99, 153 (2005). [ISI]
* 36. J. H. Fowler, L. A. Baker, C. T. Dawes, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102, 233 (2008). [ISI]
* 37. Z. F. Mainen, Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1511 (2007). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 38. H. Bracha, D. Yoshioka, N. Masakawa, D. Stockman, J. Affect. Disord. 88, 119 (2005). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 39. C. A. Ponder et al., T. C. Gilliam, A. A. Palmer, Genes Brain Behav. 6, 736 (2007). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 40. A. R. Hariri et al., Science 297, 400 (2002).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
* 41. We thank E. Whitaker, C. Jacobs, B. Sexton, K. A. Espy, J. Brehm, D. Bulling, and the James Long Company for their invaluable assistance. Financial support was provided by the NSF (SES-0721378 and SES-0721707), the ManTech Corporation, and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln's Strategic Research Cluster Grant program.
And I thought it was air conditioning that was causing the rise of conservatism.If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling. Remember how homosexuals were worried that if a "gay gene" were discovered and isolated, it might lead to a holocaust of babys carrying that gene being aborted? Call me crazy, but that could very well happen here as well, especially in more authoritarian countries like Russia and China. Imagine some would be dictator pondering the implications of being able to kill off disenters before they are ever born. It almost sounds like a really bad (or really good) sci-fi movie.But in places like the U.S., consider who is more likely to support abortion.
Well, true, it would be stronger in families, I actually was referring to who in the U.S. would be more likely to abort for potential political leans of the child.
|
|
Is it really that surprising that people who are startled easily tend to favor a protection-first mindset?
No the suprise in this study is that people who are less disturbed by violence tend to be less violent, while thos who find violence frightening tend towards violent behavior. These results run contrary to every other study I have ever read on the subject.
No the suprise in this study is that people who are less disturbed by violence tend to be less violent, while thos who find violence frightening tend towards violent behavior. These results run contrary to every other study I have ever read on the subject.
Is it really that surprising that people who are startled easily tend to favor a protection-first mindset?
Behavior? Where does it talk about the people themselves doing violent behavior or the other ones being less violent individually?
|
|
Behavior? Where does it talk about the people themselves doing violent behavior or the other ones being less violent individually?No the suprise in this study is that people who are less disturbed by violence tend to be less violent, while thos who find violence frightening tend towards violent behavior. These results run contrary to every other study I have ever read on the subject.
Is it really that surprising that people who are startled easily tend to favor a protection-first mindset?
Exactly, the study doesn't mention any behavioral characteristics of the subjects. It states that those who are more disturbed by violence may also be more predisposed to supporting aggressive responses to violence or strict measures to protect people from violence, which doesn't seem all that surprising.
|
|
Behavior? Where does it talk about the people themselves doing violent behavior or the other ones being less violent individually?No the suprise in this study is that people who are less disturbed by violence tend to be less violent, while thos who find violence frightening tend towards violent behavior. These results run contrary to every other study I have ever read on the subject.
Is it really that surprising that people who are startled easily tend to favor a protection-first mindset?
The ones who showed less fear response to violent images were catagorized as being more supportive of pacifism. The ones who showed more fear response to violent images were catagorized as being more supportive of institutional violence such as the death penelty or the Iraq War. That is what I was refering to, not personal behavior.
If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling. Imagine some would be dictator pondering the implications of being able to kill off disenters before they are ever born.But in places like the U.S., consider who is more likely to support abortion.
According to this study, people who are less fearful and thus less likely to worry about future dissenters?
The ones who showed less fear response to violent images were catagorized as being more supportive of pacifism. The ones who showed more fear response to violent images were catagorized as being more supportive of institutional violence such as the death penelty or the Iraq War. That is what I was refering to, not personal behavior.Behavior? Where does it talk about the people themselves doing violent behavior or the other ones being less violent individually?No the suprise in this study is that people who are less disturbed by violence tend to be less violent, while thos who find violence frightening tend towards violent behavior. These results run contrary to every other study I have ever read on the subject.
Is it really that surprising that people who are startled easily tend to favor a protection-first mindset?
Back up a bit though. They randomly selected 46 individuals out of some larger, but undefined, pool. These 46 had strong political points of view. These appear to be the 46 that were willing to participate in testing beyond the survey (which we don't know what it said). None were liberals/passivists/etc? Or are those the calm ones? No data on how many calm versus jumpy.
Then there's the goal of trying to define a genetic link to the social responses, but little/no medical history. Blinking, sweat production in response to 'fight or flight' stimuli, then tying that to political POVs. I see lots of conditioned behavior/reactions but the genetic tie ins are lacking.
I can see the goal but the methodology has me confused.
|
|
No the suprise in this study is that people who are less disturbed by violence tend to be less violent, while thos who find violence frightening tend towards violent behavior. These results run contrary to every other study I have ever read on the subject.
It would *seem* that people who are the least bothered by violence would be the most likely to be violent. That's certainly the case for a sociopath.
Then again, the study's suggestion that a fearful person is more likely to have a violent reaction than a person who is not afraid also makes sense. It's two different, but very similar-looking, phenomena.
In my opinion, after many psych classes, almost every generalization about people breaks down at some point, because people aren't all the same. Some people react to catharsis, and maintain that flipping out regularly or going to sad movies and crying helps them to 'let off steam' and prevents a more major blowup or depression. Others react to conditioning, and if they lose their temper, that's just *reinforcing* them to lose their temper more and more often, and under lesser and lesser stimuli.
At the end of the day, I only really care about how the dude in the mirror is acting. If someone at work has been an amazing prick to me, I try to leave it behind. They are the ones who are choosing to be angry, hateful and / or afraid, and I don't need to 'get any on me.'
The ones who showed less fear response to violent images were catagorized as being more supportive of pacifism. The ones who showed more fear response to violent images were catagorized as being more supportive of institutional violence such as the death penelty or the Iraq War. That is what I was refering to, not personal behavior.Behavior? Where does it talk about the people themselves doing violent behavior or the other ones being less violent individually?No the suprise in this study is that people who are less disturbed by violence tend to be less violent, while thos who find violence frightening tend towards violent behavior. These results run contrary to every other study I have ever read on the subject.
Is it really that surprising that people who are startled easily tend to favor a protection-first mindset?
Ok, but there is certainly a difference. I've seen images of anti-war protesters screaming profanities at, spitting on, and throwing rocks and bottles at police officers who are trying to maintain the peace. Being for some abstract concept of "non-violence" doesn't guarantee that the person themself is non-violent.
Just as a man can be for respecting women as equals but totally disrespects his own wife, treating her as below contempt. And another man could believe in traditional gender roles and treat his own wife with respect seeing her as his greatest and most trusted confident, advisor, and ally.
Humans are complex and often self-conflicting wonderous creatures.
Humans are complex and often self-conflicting wonderous creatures.
Yes, you see a lot of these types of things. The outspoken self-righteous "Christian" minister who regularly breaks almost all the Commandments; the "we're all equal" affirmative-action liberal who's afraid of minorities; the pro-life activist who supports the death penalty; the "save the environment" types with gas-guzzling SUVs, protein-gobbling dogs, and huge power-sucking houses.
Humans are complex and often self-conflicting wonderous creatures.Yes, you see a lot of these types of things. The outspoken self-righteous "Christian" minister who regularly breaks almost all the Commandments; the "we're all equal" affirmative-action liberal who's afraid of minorities; the pro-life activist who supports the death penalty; the "save the environment" types with gas-guzzling SUVs, protein-gobbling dogs, and huge power-sucking houses.
Yep. The thing is that all of us are hypocrites to a certain degree.
|
|
Humans are complex and often self-conflicting wonderous creatures.Yes, you see a lot of these types of things. The outspoken self-righteous "Christian" minister who regularly breaks almost all the Commandments; the "we're all equal" affirmative-action liberal who's afraid of minorities; the pro-life activist who supports the death penalty; the "save the environment" types with gas-guzzling SUVs, protein-gobbling dogs, and huge power-sucking houses.
While most of what you wrote is true, I strongly disagree that there is any inherent conflict with being against abortion but in favor of the death penalty. How is it conflicting to say that unborn (and hence "innocent") children should not be killed, and adults who have freely chosen to end another's life should receive the same in punishment? The two are apples and oranges, to me.
I personally find it harder to reconcile the opposite position; i.e. terminate a pregnancy but a convicted killer deserves to live ...
Yep. The thing is that all of us are hypocrites to a certain degree.
QFT.
Everyone has things they rationalize away, other things they stick to. I've seen kids who have previously shown no sign of anything even vaguely resembling a value suddenly stand up and make a totally committed, powerfully unwavering response, when the right issue comes along. The idea that some people have "values" and others lack them is a trifle glib; in my experience, people place wildly different values on different things.
How is it conflicting to say that unborn (and hence "innocent") children should not be killed, and adults who have freely chosen to end another's life should receive the same in punishment?
Let me clarify; the conflict I see is only with those who embrace the whole "culture of life" rhetoric, the people spouting on about human life being the most sacred of all things, and who base an anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-assisted-suicide, anti-evolution crusade on this supposedly ultimately sacred thing... and, yet, an abortion doctor is fair game to be blown up, and criminals or suspected terrorists can be put to death almost at a whim. They might be "bad people," but are they no longer human?
Luckily, most people aren't that extreme, and as you point out, need not come into conflict that way.
|
|
Let me clarify; the conflict I see is only with those who embrace the whole "culture of life" rhetoric, the people spouting on about human life being the most sacred of all things, and who base an anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-assisted-suicide, anti-evolution crusade on this supposedly ultimately sacred thing... and, yet, an abortion doctor is fair game to be blown up, and criminals or suspected terrorists can be put to death almost at a whim. They might be "bad people," but are they no longer human?
Luckily, most people aren't that extreme, and as you point out, need not come into conflict that way.
True enough; and while I am anti-abortion (definitely not an activist, though), I do not espouse the "all human life is sacred" argument. Despite all its lofty ideals, it just isn't true. Are the lives of my family sacred? To me, you bet. Is the life of an intruder in my home sacred? Maybe to God, but certainly not to me.
|
And I thought it was air conditioning that was causing the rise of conservatism.
Nah, man. Air Conditioning is the cause of the expansion of government in general, not any particular ideology.
Someone wrote a really interesting article on that theory once - how when AC was installed in buildings in D.C., it led to politicians actually staying and doing business for a longer time period. In turn, this led to a growth in the gov't. If I can find it, I'll post a link.
According to this study, people who are less fearful and thus less likely to worry about future dissenters?If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling. Imagine some would be dictator pondering the implications of being able to kill off disenters before they are ever born.But in places like the U.S., consider who is more likely to support abortion.
Yup. They would do it to "spare" the poor child from living a life "handicapped" by fear and close-mindedness. Think of it as eliminating a more advanced form of mental retardation.
They would do it to "spare" the poor child from living a life "handicapped" by fear and close-mindedness.
"Those liberals will stop at nothing to eliminate conservatives! They want to kill us all in the womb!" This is like an Ann Coulter moment... maybe they were right about the paranoia. ;)
Seriously, though, pres man, you're probably kidding, but if not: (a) I don't think all the liberals really want to kill you, and (b) anyone goofy enough to concoct a scheme like the one you outline wouldn't have the brains to pull it off, even if they wanted to.
They would do it to "spare" the poor child from living a life "handicapped" by fear and close-mindedness."Those liberals will stop at nothing to eliminate conservatives! They want to kill us all in the womb!" This is like an Ann Coulter moment... maybe they were right about the paranoia. ;)
Seriously, though, pres man, you're probably kidding, but if not: (a) I don't think all the liberals really want to kill you, and (b) anyone goofy enough to concoct a scheme like the one you outline wouldn't have the brains to pull it off, even if they wanted to.
Of course they don't want to kill me (well some do maybe, but not all), because I've already been born. It is the whole death penalty versus abortion idea. But why wouldn't a loving liberal couple who learned that their unborn child was going to be potentially a conservative spare such a child from such a fate, just as they would a mentally retarded child?
Yes, I am mostly joking but the concept of "killing us in the womb" isn't so far fetched. Look at the founder of Planned Parenthood and their views on minorities breeding. Liberalism at its "best".
Also, it is not paranoia if they are really out to get you. ;)
|
If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling...
While I'm no scientist, I play one on TV...
All kidding aside, I 'm not convinced anyone could necessarily be genetically disposed toward liberal or conservative thinking, since philosophy by its nature is learned. Personally, I was ultraliberal until around my junior year of high school, when I began to gradually become more conservative.
I still have my liberal tendencies--I don't believe in state execution, for example; but I also don't believe in elective abortion, which is generally considered a conservative ideal. I would note that those two particular beliefs could be generalized as one and the same, and that I might have a genetic predisposition to safeguarding my (philosophical) perception of 'life,' but the very fact that I have both beliefs suggests that liberal or conservative thought, beyond being dynamic sets of ideals based on the whims of society, are simple means of ration rather than means of evolution.
|
|
They would do it to "spare" the poor child from living a life "handicapped" by fear and close-mindedness."Those liberals will stop at nothing to eliminate conservatives! They want to kill us all in the womb!" This is like an Ann Coulter moment... maybe they were right about the paranoia. ;)
Seriously, though, pres man, you're probably kidding, but if not: (a) I don't think all the liberals really want to kill you, and (b) anyone goofy enough to concoct a scheme like the one you outline wouldn't have the brains to pull it off, even if they wanted to.
Of course they don't want to kill me (well some do maybe, but not all), because I've already been born. It is the whole death penalty versus abortion idea. But why wouldn't a loving liberal couple who learned that their unborn child was going to be potentially a conservative spare such a child from such a fate, just as they would a mentally retarded child?
Yes, I am mostly joking but the concept of "killing us in the womb" isn't so far fetched. Look at the founder of Planned Parenthood and their views on minorities breeding. Liberalism at its "best".
Also, it is not paranoia if they are really out to get you. ;)
While Kith and Pres are right, such a scenario would be extremely far fetched in America, at least institutionally, there are other places in the world where I could see such a scenario playing out. Remember when the Iranian president went to Columbia University and declared that there were absolutely no homosexuals in Iran? We all laughed at such a ridiculous statement, but imagine if he could actually test for a "gay gene" or a "disentors gene," with the power he has, he might go ahead and try and make his vision a reality. The same could very well happen in other totalitarian nations like China, which already mandiates how many children you can have. It's only a few steps from there to telling you what genes your kids can have.
|
|
If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling...While I'm no scientist, I play one on TV...
All kidding aside, I 'm not convinced anyone could necessarily be genetically disposed toward liberal or conservative thinking, since philosophy by its nature is learned.
I personally agree, since I went through a similar transition to the one you describe. However, the point of the article, as reported, was that there is a link between our fight or flight response and our political leanings. Hence, the news report tried to make it out to be a genetic thing. Now, once I read the article, I saw that is not exactly what the researchers said, however, that is how it was reported. I was simply pointing the possible ramifications of such a discovery. The same could be said to be true of a genetic link to any behavioural condition. Say we discovered a genetic profile that is expressed in all people who abuse their spouses, but not in anyone who does not. Parents might then struggle with the dilemma of giveing birth to a wife beater. The same is true with the rumored "serial killer gene." These are all things that must be considered, because, while this country will not go down the road of aborting babies based on the potential ramification of their dna, at least while I am strong enough to fight against it, other countries with less enlightened leadership might.