3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Investigating the conservatism-disgust paradox in reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic: A reexamination of the interrelations among political ideology, disgust sensitivity, and pandemic response

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Research has documented robust associations between greater disgust sensitivity and (1) concerns about disease, and (2) political conservatism. However, the COVID-19 disease pandemic raised challenging questions about these associations. In particular, why have conservatives—despite their greater disgust sensitivity—exhibited less concern about the pandemic? Here, we investigate this “conservatism-disgust paradox” and address several outstanding theoretical questions regarding the interrelations among disgust sensitivity, ideology, and pandemic response. In four studies ( N = 1,764), we identify several methodological and conceptual factors—in particular, an overreliance on self-report measures—that may have inflated the apparent associations among these constructs. Using non-self-report measures, we find evidence that disgust sensitivity may be a less potent predictor of disease avoidance than is typically assumed, and that ideological differences in disgust sensitivity may be amplified by self-report measures. These findings suggest that the true pattern of interrelations among these factors may be less “paradoxical” than is typically believed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?

          Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is a relatively new website that contains the major elements required to conduct research: an integrated participant compensation system; a large participant pool; and a streamlined process of study design, participant recruitment, and data collection. In this article, we describe and evaluate the potential contributions of MTurk to psychology and other social sciences. Findings indicate that (a) MTurk participants are slightly more demographically diverse than are standard Internet samples and are significantly more diverse than typical American college samples; (b) participation is affected by compensation rate and task length, but participants can still be recruited rapidly and inexpensively; (c) realistic compensation rates do not affect data quality; and (d) the data obtained are at least as reliable as those obtained via traditional methods. Overall, MTurk can be used to obtain high-quality data inexpensively and rapidly.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.

              How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war." Copyright (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Methodology
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                4 November 2022
                2022
                4 November 2022
                : 17
                : 11
                : e0275440
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
                [2 ] The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America
                [3 ] Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
                St John’s University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1819-4061
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8784-7607
                Article
                PONE-D-21-20314
                10.1371/journal.pone.0275440
                9635700
                36331918
                74ef9e74-4ee6-43c8-bac1-57256cd29b30
                © 2022 Ruisch et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 21 June 2021
                : 16 September 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 24
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010661, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme;
                Award ID: 897440
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: US National Science Foundation
                Award ID: 2031097
                Award Recipient :
                This research was supported by Grant #2031097 from the National Science Foundation ( https://www.nsf.gov/) to R. H. F. This project also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme ( https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/home) under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant #897440 to B. C. R. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Infectious Disease Control
                Social Distancing
                Social Sciences
                Political Science
                Governments
                Political Parties
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Attitudes
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Attitudes
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Virus Testing
                Custom metadata
                All data, syntax, and materials are openly available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/3ypx2/?view_only=dec5abe4eed6465bae473b3a96992b6d.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article