Conservative Negativity Bias

[Mighty AC]

An interesting study, by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, has found actual physiological differences between liberals and conservatives. Research has shown that conservatives have a "negativity bias" making them more sensitive to fearful or threatening stimuli, perceptions of danger and death anxiety. This work jives with other studies on the subject and explains why conservatives are more responsive to negative political attack ads. The fear mentality also explains conservative positioning on law enforcement, military issues, gun control, immigration, etc.

A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that [/size]liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics.

Political conservatives have a "negativity bias," meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments.

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias

[Boges]

Well the most recent Ontario election kind of blows a giant hole in that theory.

[TimG]

An interesting study, by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, has found actual physiological differences between liberals and conservatives.

They are finding that almost every aspect of your personality has some link to biology so it should come as no surprise political outlook has a link as well.

It also comes as no surprise that a bunch of liberal academics would try to spin the results in a way that makes it sound like there is something wrong with conservative views. I am sure the same analysis could be used to show that liberals have a "chicken little bias" when it comes to assessing the threat from improbable risks from things like nuclear power, GMOs or climate change. But such an analysis would never be published because liberal academics are not interested in seeing their views treated as irrational responses to environmental stimuli.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see the usefulness of studies that purport to show that Conservatives have some kind of defect. Unless we're going to play into the Alex Jones paranoid nightmares of Obama's FEMA reprogramming camp, we have to live with the fact that a large proportion of people have different values from each other and we have to figure out a way to deal with it.

In fact, we did come up with a way to deal with it: it's called politics, and it only works with conflict and clashes. It's unpleasant sometimes, but necessary. If people really look within themselves, though, they'll realize that the shared values are stronger than those that conflict.

[Mighty AC]

I don't see the usefulness of studies that purport to show that Conservatives have some kind of defect.

Why must a heightened sense of fear and sensitivity to negative stimuli be considered a defect? Isn't it possible that understanding the root of our emotional reactions can lead us to more reasonable conversations and actions?

It also comes as no surprise that a bunch of liberal academics would try to spin the results in a way that makes it sound like there is something wrong with conservative views.

...

But such an analysis would never be published because liberal academics are not interested in seeing their views treated as irrational responses to environmental stimuli.

Hmmm, interesting that, in your view, academics producing information that doesn't gel with your worldview must always be liberal and part of a conspiracy. Do you think there are physiological reasons that prevent conservatives from doing scientific research? Or is it more likely that your strong disconfirmation bias steers you towards rationalizing away evidence rather than assimilating it into your understanding?

[TimG]

Why must a heightened sense of fear and sensitivity to negative stimuli be considered a defect?

The choice of the words 'negative' and 'fear' is designed to make it sound bad.

Other words would have been choosen if the authors had different ideological outlooks.

Hmmm, interesting that, in your view, academics producing information that doesn't gel with your worldview must always be liberal and part of a conspiracy.

More of the typical nonsense I have come to expect from liberals who are completely incapable of self reflection.

My accusations of bias in this case are based on the choice of wording in the study that clearly treats conservative views as 'alien' and would have only been written by someone who does not share those views. No conspiracy - just logical deductions.

Do you think there are physiological reasons that prevent conservatives from doing scientific research?

The academic environment today encourages conformity to the dominate liberal political views because getting tenure requires the approval of the largely liberal establishment. People who rock the boat by doing research which undermines the liberal viewpoint are shut out (or at least have a much tougher road to tenure). This means that conservatives will quickly realize that a career in private industry is a much better choice which only serves to exacerbate the liberal bias in academia. Edited July 17, 2014 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

The choice of the words 'negative' and 'fear' is designed to make it sound bad.

They should have chosen a different word than "negativity". Conservatives and liberals are both negative, just about different things.

But a bunch of things within the study seem to back up observations I've had about many conservatives. We can debate certain words chosen in the study, but what about the actual findings in the study itself? You can't just throw it all out because you think there's some anti-conservative conspiracy happening from liberal academia here.

[eyeball]

liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics.

I'm betting this difference was probably observable in our deep past amongst our early ancestors still living in the trees.

Where the curious progressives bravely descended to begin our conquest of the world below the fearful conservatives shrieked at the temerity of it all.

[TimG]

They should have chosen a different word than "negativity". Conservatives and liberals are both negative, just about different things.

But a bunch of things within the study seem to back up observations I've had about many conservatives. We can debate certain words chosen in the study, but what about the actual findings in the study itself? You can't just throw it all out because you think there's some anti-conservative conspiracy happening from liberal academia here.

In my first post I indicated that the finding itself was quite plausible. My complaint is the spin created by the choice of words and the presentation of results.

I agree with you that the differences between liberals and conservatives are in the things they choose to be negative about. My guess framing it that way did not create enough of a "hook" to make it a publishable paper. Framing in a way that allowed the reviewers to feel that their ideological views are superior gave them a "hook".

[waldo]

The academic environment today encourages conformity to the dominate liberal political views because getting tenure requires the approval of the largely liberal establishment. People who rock the boat by doing research which undermines the liberal viewpoint are shut out (or at least have a much tougher road to tenure). This means that conservatives will quickly realize that a career in private industry is a much better choice which only serves to exacerbate the liberal bias in academia.

the U.S. National Brookhaven lab has been cited in several past MLW threads/posts - care to describe your claimed "liberal establishment", "liberal viewpoint", "liberal political views"... and how the profiled research of the respective scientists adhere to your tenure claim?

12 Brookhaven Lab Scientists Granted Tenure

[Shady]

This stuff is too funny! Every month there's a new "study" echoing the same type of tripe. Leftists can't and don't want a discussion of policies on the merits. This is their latest attempt to silence and stifle debate. If you don't agree with their policy prescriptions, you have some inherent "flaw".

[Mighty AC]

This stuff is too funny! Every month there's a new "study" echoing the same type of tripe. Leftists can't and don't want a discussion of policies on the merits. This is their latest attempt to silence and stifle debate. If you don't agree with their policy prescriptions, you have some inherent "flaw".

How is this stifling debate? This is just information. People with a fear of change and need for certainty tend to be conservative. Parties know this information and use it. Do you think conservative parties use negative and fear based attack ads because they annoy their target audience? They know attack ads resonate with their base; hence that's what they produce. It has been shown that the same negativity and fear does not play as well to liberal audiences. More progressive parties running these type of messages in an attempt to woo conservative voters run the risk of angering their own base. This is a bit of a tightrope in Canada since we have multiple left leaning options.

[TimG]

How is this stifling debate? This is just information.

It is not information. It is spin - spin designed to feed the liberal echo chamber and provide excuses to treat the opinions of people which disagree with them as not worthy of consideration.

If this study was done with the objective of providing information it would have examined how liberals and conservatives react with fear/negativity towards different things instead of singling out the conservative priorities for dissection.

Do you think conservative parties use negative and fear based attack ads because they annoy their target audience?

For years, the big-L Liberals in Canada stayed in power by spreading fear of conservatives. We saw this most recently in the Ontario election. The suggestion that the use of fear as a motivating technique is unique to conservatives is an outright lie. Edited July 18, 2014 by TimG

[Shady]

It is not information. It is spin - spin designed to feed the liberal echo chamber and provide excuses to treat the opinions of people which disagree with them as not worthy of consideration.If this study was done with the objective of providing information it would have examined how liberals and conservatives react with fear/negativity towards different things instead of singling out the conservative priorities for dissection. For years, the big-L Liberals in Canada stayed in power by spreading fear of conservatives. We saw this most recently in the Ontario election. The suggestion that the use of fear as a motivating technique is unique to conservatives is an outright lie.

Exactly. Hmm, let's see. 2-tier healthcare! 2-tier healthcare! Secret agenda! Secret agenda! Troops in the streets! Troops in the streets!

[Bryan]

Exactly. Hmm, let's see. 2-tier healthcare! 2-tier healthcare! Secret agenda! Secret agenda! Troops in the streets! Troops in the streets!

It goes back further than that. Manning, Mulroney, Stanfield, Diefenbaker, etc, were ALL vilified using fear and smear campaigns. Liberals are by far the most likely to use fear to try to spread their point. Conservatives have a long way to go before they catch up to that game.

It's not just party politics, left-wing causes primarily use fear mongering as a means of getting people to comply with their wishes. Witness the AGW hysteria.

[Shady]

It goes back further than that. Manning, Mulroney, Stanfield, Diefenbaker, etc, were ALL vilified using fear and smear campaigns. Liberals are by far the most likely to use fear to try to spread their point. Conservatives have a long way to go before they catch up to that game.

It's not just party politics, left-wing causes primarily use fear mongering as a means of getting people to comply with their wishes. Witness the AGW hysteria.

Well said. It's more of a pseudo-science posing as actual science. It's part of their intolerant dogma. You either agree with them, or you're a denier, or have a mental or psychological flaw. It's like dealing with a bunch of children.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well said. It's more of a pseudo-science posing as actual science. It's part of their intolerant dogma. You either agree with them, or you're a denier, or have a mental or psychological flaw. It's like dealing with a bunch of children.

Not very well said at all. If you want pseudo science go visit Harpers religion, CAMA, site. There is no actual science much any more because Harper laid them all off. STUPID. But bring that election on. B'bye cons.

[cybercoma]

This stuff is too funny! Every month there's a new "study" echoing the same type of tripe. Leftists can't and don't want a discussion of policies on the merits. This is their latest attempt to silence and stifle debate. If you don't agree with their policy prescriptions, you have some inherent "flaw".

That's interesting. Did they decide to shut down Parliament or Congress due to these findings and I just didn't hear about it?

[cybercoma]

Exactly. Hmm, let's see. 2-tier healthcare! 2-tier healthcare! Secret agenda! Secret agenda! Troops in the streets! Troops in the streets!

How did the troops in the streets ads work out?

Meanwhile, Harper's Conservatives are now running Reefer Madness videos about Trudeau and calling them "political information ads."

[On Guard for Thee]

Well said. It's more of a pseudo-science posing as actual science. It's part of their intolerant dogma. You either agree with them, or you're a denier, or have a mental or psychological flaw. It's like dealing with a bunch of children.

I guess that's why Canadians have elected them almost 2 to 1 over the Cons.

[TimG]

Another entry in the "pathologize your political opponents" file:

The authors found that, on average, those who had East German roots cheated twice as much as those who had grown up in West Germany under capitalism. They also looked at how much time people had spent in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The longer the participants had been exposed to socialism, the greater the likelihood that they would claim improbable numbers of high rolls.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21607830-more-people-are-exposed-socialism-worse-they-behave-lying-commies

FWIW - I think the conclusions of this paper are also unjustified and driven by the biases of the authors even though it a happens to promote a view that validates things I believe in (i.e. I can think of many reasons other than socialism per se that would explain a correlation between East Germans and dishonesty).

Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG

[dre]

Well said. It's more of a pseudo-science posing as actual science. It's part of their intolerant dogma. You either agree with them, or you're a denier, or have a mental or psychological flaw. It's like dealing with a bunch of children.

This just reinforces the findings. Your fear complex causes you to see the very concept of science and academics as some kind of enemy... a danger... a massive conspiracy to suppress your views. The media... teachers... scientists... is there anyone that ISNT part of this massive conspiracy to suppress conservative thought? ROFLMAO. You are a PERFECT example of what the study found.

[Shady]

This just reinforces the findings. Your fear complex causes you to see the very concept of science and academics as some kind of enemy... a danger... a massive conspiracy to suppress your views. The media... teachers... scientists... is there anyone that ISNT part of this massive conspiracy to suppress conservative thought? ROFLMAO. You are a PERFECT example of what the study found.

No. Your fear complex causes you to think that anyone that disagrees with you has some type of inherent flaw. Pathetic.

[dre]

No. Your fear complex causes you to think that anyone that disagrees with you has some type of inherent flaw. Pathetic.

I dont think that at all. And I dont think that a heightened fear response even IS a flaw, it could just as easily be an asset. Im just pointing out that you are a perfect example of what the study is saying, and you personify its findings.

[Shady]

I dont think that at all. And I dont think that a heightened fear response even IS a flaw, it could just as easily be an asset. Im just pointing out that you are a perfect example of what the study is saying, and you personify its findings.

I think that you personify it's findings. I guess we can agree to disagree.