Mark
30th January 2012, 19:35
Very interesting.
Right- and left-wingers found to look at things differently—literally (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120125_eyes)
From cable TV news pundits to red-meat speeches, deep political stereotypes are on full display in the unfolding U.S. election season. Conservatives paint self-indulgent liberals as insufferably absent on urgent national issues. Liberals say fear-mongering conservatives are fixated on exaggerated dangers to the country.
A new U.S. study suggests there are biological truths to such broad brushstrokes.
In a series of experiments, researchers closely monitored physiological reactions and eye movements of study participants shown combinations of both pleasant and unpleasant images. Conservatives reacted more strongly to, fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; liberals had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images compared with conservatives.
“It’s been said that conservatives and liberals don’t see things in the same way,” said Mike Dodd, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the study’s lead author. “These findings make that clear – quite literally.”
Participants were shown a series of images on a screen. Electrodes attached to the skin measured subtle electrical changes, indicative of emotional reactions. Participants were also outfitted with eyetracking equipment that captured even the most subtle of eye movements. Researchers found that while liberals’ gazes tended to fall upon the pleasant images, such as a beach ball or a bunny rabbit, conservatives focused on the negative images – of an open wound, a crashed car or a dirty toilet, for example.
Consistent with this pattern, conservatives also exhibited a stronger physiological response to images of Democratic politicians – presumed to be a negative to them – than they did on pictures of well-known Republicans. Liberals, on the other hand, had a stronger physiological response to the Democrats – presumed to be a positive stimulus to them – than they did to images of the Republicans.
By studying both physiological and cognitive aspects, the researchers established unique new insights into the growing notion that political leanings are at least partial products of our biology, political scientist and study co-author Kevin Smith of the university said.
Recent research on the subject has focused mostly on physiological reactions to negative stimuli. The new study’s use of cognitive data regarding both positive and negative imagery adds to the understanding of how liberals and conservatives experience the world, Smith said.
Political scientist and co-author John Hibbing, also at the university, said the results might mean that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in life and are more naturally inclined to confront them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense, he said.
The results also are consistent with conservatives’ support of policies to protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased defense spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well (support for traditional values and being tough on crime), Hibbing said.
The researchers contend their discovery offers an opportunity to recognize the relevance of deeper biological variables in politics and reduce political polarization. Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced if it was widely understood that political differences are based in part on our physiological and cognitive differences.
“When conservatives say that liberals are out of it and just don’t get it, from this standpoint, that’s true,” Hibbing said. “And when liberals say ‘What are (conservatives) so frightened of? Is the world really that dangerous?’ Given what each side sees, what they pay attention to, what they physiologically experience – the answer is both sides are right.”
Right- and left-wingers found to look at things differently—literally (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120125_eyes)
From cable TV news pundits to red-meat speeches, deep political stereotypes are on full display in the unfolding U.S. election season. Conservatives paint self-indulgent liberals as insufferably absent on urgent national issues. Liberals say fear-mongering conservatives are fixated on exaggerated dangers to the country.
A new U.S. study suggests there are biological truths to such broad brushstrokes.
In a series of experiments, researchers closely monitored physiological reactions and eye movements of study participants shown combinations of both pleasant and unpleasant images. Conservatives reacted more strongly to, fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; liberals had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images compared with conservatives.
“It’s been said that conservatives and liberals don’t see things in the same way,” said Mike Dodd, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the study’s lead author. “These findings make that clear – quite literally.”
Participants were shown a series of images on a screen. Electrodes attached to the skin measured subtle electrical changes, indicative of emotional reactions. Participants were also outfitted with eyetracking equipment that captured even the most subtle of eye movements. Researchers found that while liberals’ gazes tended to fall upon the pleasant images, such as a beach ball or a bunny rabbit, conservatives focused on the negative images – of an open wound, a crashed car or a dirty toilet, for example.
Consistent with this pattern, conservatives also exhibited a stronger physiological response to images of Democratic politicians – presumed to be a negative to them – than they did on pictures of well-known Republicans. Liberals, on the other hand, had a stronger physiological response to the Democrats – presumed to be a positive stimulus to them – than they did to images of the Republicans.
By studying both physiological and cognitive aspects, the researchers established unique new insights into the growing notion that political leanings are at least partial products of our biology, political scientist and study co-author Kevin Smith of the university said.
Recent research on the subject has focused mostly on physiological reactions to negative stimuli. The new study’s use of cognitive data regarding both positive and negative imagery adds to the understanding of how liberals and conservatives experience the world, Smith said.
Political scientist and co-author John Hibbing, also at the university, said the results might mean that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in life and are more naturally inclined to confront them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense, he said.
The results also are consistent with conservatives’ support of policies to protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased defense spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well (support for traditional values and being tough on crime), Hibbing said.
The researchers contend their discovery offers an opportunity to recognize the relevance of deeper biological variables in politics and reduce political polarization. Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced if it was widely understood that political differences are based in part on our physiological and cognitive differences.
“When conservatives say that liberals are out of it and just don’t get it, from this standpoint, that’s true,” Hibbing said. “And when liberals say ‘What are (conservatives) so frightened of? Is the world really that dangerous?’ Given what each side sees, what they pay attention to, what they physiologically experience – the answer is both sides are right.”