View Full Version : Politics and Eye Movement

11th December 2010, 18:45
It seems that conservative/republican mentalities actually DO posses different internal wiring than Liberal/Democrat mentalities.


It goes without saying that conservatives and liberals don't see the world in the same way. Now, research from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln suggests that is exactly, and quite literally, the case.


In a new study, UNL researchers measured both liberals' and conservatives' reaction to "gaze cues" -- a person's tendency to shift attention in a direction consistent with another person's eye movements, even if it's irrelevant to their current task -- and found big differences between the two groups.

Liberals responded strongly to the prompts, consistently moving their attention in the direction suggested to them by a face on a computer screen. Conservatives, on the other hand, did not.

Why? Researchers suggested that conservatives' value on personal autonomy might make them less likely to be influenced by others, and therefore less responsive to the visual prompts.

"We thought that political temperament may moderate the magnitude of gaze-cuing effects, but we did not expect conservatives to be completely immune to these cues," said Michael Dodd, a UNL assistant professor of psychology and the lead author of the study.

Liberals may have followed the "gaze cues," meanwhile, because they tend to be more responsive to others, the study suggests.

"This study basically provides one more piece of evidence that liberals and conservatives perceive the world, and process information taken in from that world, in different ways," said Kevin Smith, UNL professor of political science and one of the study's authors.

"Understanding exactly why people have such different political perspectives and where those differences come from may help us better understand the roots of a lot of political conflict."

The study involved 72 people who sat in front of a white computer screen and were told to fixate on a small black cross in its center. The cross then disappeared and was replaced by a drawing of a face, but with eyes missing their pupils. Then, pupils appeared in the eyes, looking either left or right. Finally, a small, round target would appear either on the left or right side of the face drawing.

Dodd said the participants were told that the gaze cues in the study did not predict where the target would appear, so there was no reason for participants to attend to them. "But the nature of social interaction tends to make it very difficult to ignore the cues, even when they're meaningless," he said.

As soon as they saw the target, participants would tap the space bar on their keyboard, giving researchers information on their susceptibility to the "gaze cues." Each sequence, which lasted a few hundred milliseconds, was repeated hundreds of times.

Afterward, participants were surveyed on their beliefs on a range of political issues to establish their political ideology.

In addition to shedding light on the differences between the two political camps, researchers said the results add to growing indications that suggest biology plays a role determining one's political direction. Previous UNL research has delved into the physiology of political orientation, showing that those highly responsive to threatening images are likely to support defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War.

Traditionally, political scientists have accounted for political differences purely in terms of environmental forces, but this study shows the potential role of cognitive biases -- wherever they may come from -- as a relevant area of future research.

"Getting things done in politics typically depends on competing viewpoints finding common ground," Smith said. "Our research is suggesting that's a lot tougher than it sounds, because the same piece of ground can look very different depending on which ideological hill you view it from."

The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is in a forthcoming edition of the journal Attention, Perception & Psychophysics and is authored by UNL's Dodd, Smith and John R. Hibbing.

=[Post Update]=

To whit, my dog suffered from the same issue as do Republican/conservative mentalities. She'd look at my finger, not all the heavenly glory that I was pointing at. She'd look at my face, not all the heavenly glory I was turning to look at. Nothing against my pup but..... well, animalism... and limited intelligence. Two key points.

11th December 2010, 19:10
Usually I'm more kind ..but when push comes to shove, sometime you have to shove back.

In essence, this seems to, in a nutshell, explain why the Republican party and it's adherents are used so heavily as a driving force, or tool, for their agenda. Limited reach, limited cognition and not just limited, but a notable difference (orientation, polarization, reach, etc) as well.

Which supports the understanding that, at this current time, many will express the more rabid of a given 'party line towing group'...to be like 'a dog on a leash'.

In this current time, sadly, this seems to hit the nail on the head when it comes to describing the adherents to the current 'Republican Party Line'. Like a work animal. A tool, nothing more.

Like my dog, they like to sit on the couch and think they are part of the human team. But they are not getting any couch time, like my dog did.

They are really just treated and used as a tool who's residence is out in the doghouse. Which explains why they can't see it and are dragged around, trained, on a leash.

I like the article as it shows an undercurrent separation point that is likely tied to empathetic, or, 'developed human thought'. Evolved human thought. Evolved human mental structure (physically). Of course, one must be careful to not indicate a eugenics cast to the argument. That would be the part of the mentality that is being both described and avoided.

It' s not necessarily a party issue but it is an issue about limiting one's reach, and the specific why's of that as contained in the indications about cranial wiring.

Anne Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? Bush Junior? God help us, that does help explain the issues surrounding that insanity.

Where's that 'pot stirring' smiley when you need it? :p :pop2::whip::boxing:

11th December 2010, 19:42
What about those not falling into 1-dimensional political scale ?

I have a general problem with people completely aligning with one or another political ideology, including both soclibs or fasci-blicans

12th December 2010, 04:02
I'm just having a bit of fun. To work with those of that type, (which frankly would never be on this site), you have to state it in "their terms". Which is self defeating, but what the heck. :biggrin: