Conservatives and Liberals have Similar Physiological Responses to Threats

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

About a decade ago a study documented that conservatives have stronger physiological responses to threatening stimuli than liberals. This work launched a paradigm aimed at uncovering the biological roots of ideology. Despite wide-ranging scientific and popular impact, independent laboratories have not replicated the study. We conducted a preregistered direct replication (N=202) and conceptual replications in the United States (N=352) and the Netherlands (N=81). Our analyses do not support the conclusions of the original study, nor do we find evidence for broader claims regarding the effect of disgust and the existence of a physiological trait. Rather than studying unconscious responses as the “real” predispositions, alignment between conscious and unconscious responses promise deeper insights in the emotional roots of ideology.

Related collections

Most cited references 35

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

Siri Isaksson, Colin F Camerer, Anna Dreber … (2018)

Being able to replicate scientific findings is crucial for scientific progress1-15. We replicate 21 systematically selected experimental studies in the social sciences published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 201516-36. The replications follow analysis plans reviewed by the original authors and pre-registered prior to the replications. The replications are high powered, with sample sizes on average about five times higher than in the original studies. We find a significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 13 (62%) studies, and the effect size of the replications is on average about 50% of the original effect size. Replicability varies between 12 (57%) and 14 (67%) studies for complementary replicability indicators. Consistent with these results, the estimated true-positive rate is 67% in a Bayesian analysis. The relative effect size of true positives is estimated to be 71%, suggesting that both false positives and inflated effect sizes of true positives contribute to imperfect reproducibility. Furthermore, we find that peer beliefs of replicability are strongly related to replicability, suggesting that the research community could predict which results would replicate and that failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.

0 comments Cited 359 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Investigating Variation in Replicability

Richard A. Klein, Kate A Ratliff, Michelangelo Vianello … (2014)

Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.

0 comments Cited 315 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage-Dickey method.

Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Tom Lodewyckx, Himanshu Kuriyal … (2010)

In the field of cognitive psychology, the p-value hypothesis test has established a stranglehold on statistical reporting. This is unfortunate, as the p-value provides at best a rough estimate of the evidence that the data provide for the presence of an experimental effect. An alternative and arguably more appropriate measure of evidence is conveyed by a Bayesian hypothesis test, which prefers the model with the highest average likelihood. One of the main problems with this Bayesian hypothesis test, however, is that it often requires relatively sophisticated numerical methods for its computation. Here we draw attention to the Savage-Dickey density ratio method, a method that can be used to compute the result of a Bayesian hypothesis test for nested models and under certain plausible restrictions on the parameter priors. Practical examples demonstrate the method's validity, generality, and flexibility. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 202 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-journal-id): 101697750

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Nat Hum Behav

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Nat Hum Behav

Title: Nature human behaviour

ISSN (Electronic): 2397-3374

Publication date Nihms-submitted: 08 January 2020

Publication date (Electronic): 10 February 2020

Publication date (Print): June 2020

Publication date PMC-release: 10 August 2020

Volume: 4

Issue: 6

Pages: 613-621

Affiliations

[1 ]Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1001 NG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[2 ]Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1001 NG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[3 ]Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University, 191 Ryders Lane, New Brunswick, New Jersey, US

[4 ]Department of Political Science, Temple University, 1115 Polett Walk, PA 19122, Philadelphia, USA

Author notes

[* ]Corresponding author: Bert N. Bakker ( b.n.bakker@ 123456uva.nl )

Article

Manuscript ID: EMS85387

DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-0823-z

PMC ID: 7306406

PubMed ID: 32042109

SO-VID: 21e0d96f-1cd8-4a61-9482-68407c0d31eb

License:

Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms

Conservatives and Liberals have Similar Physiological Responses to Threats

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Special series on Community Responses to Climate Change

Most cited references 35

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

Investigating Variation in Replicability

Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage-Dickey method.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 225

Cited by 41

Most referenced authors 822