Our brains include systems that direct our attention. These systems are so far only partially known. We know, for example, that one function of the amygdala is to initiate startle responses. For this purpose there are fast and direct paths from the ear to the amygdala. Sudden loud noises are detected by the amygdala, which makes us spill our coffee or otherwise prepares us for action, in case it will be needed. The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is another brain module with attention functions. It normally receives information later than the amygdala does, so the information has been contextualized more. (That is, the ACC knows more than just the fact that something loud happened.) The ACC detects the significant and the unexpected and in a sense forwards it for further attention. These attentional decisions are made quickly and without conscious awareness at the time that the decisions are made.
Luciana Carraro and two collaborators published a 2011 paper that asked whether there are differences based on ideological preferences in such attentional decisions. The paper is titled “The Automatic Conservative: Ideology-Based Attentional Asymmetries in the Processing of Valenced Information,” and the title anticipates the conclusion.
The paper sets the stage with a review of recent learnings:
“[S]tructural MRI data demonstrated that conservatives have an increased gray matter volume of the right amygdala, a brain structure involved in the processing of threatening information. This suggests that individuals embracing conservative political views might be more sensitive to signals of threat, and display avoidance regulatory strategies....[C]onservatives display higher changes in skin conductance, as compared to liberals, when they are presented with threatening stimuli (e.g., a bloody face)....[C]onservatives and liberals explore novel situations differently, with the former being more cautious and more likely to display learning asymmetries, namely a tendency to learn negative items relatively better than positive items....[C]onservatives are more likely to interpret ambiguous facial stimuli as expressing threatening emotions. In impression formation tasks, conservatives...give also more weight to negative as compared to positive information.” [Carraro 2011]
The paper reports three experiments.
In experiment 1, political ideology was assessed with six questions that, in our terms, are measures of authoritarian intolerance: “reduction of immigration, abortion, medically assisted procreation, homosexual marriage, use of arms for personal defense, adoption by homosexual couples”. These evaluations correlated .62 with political affiliations.
Subjects performed an Emotional Stroop Test. They were asked to quickly identify the color in which words were printed, either red or blue. Half the words were emotionally positive (“love, peace, nice, ....”), half were negative (“anger, hate, vomit, ....”). If the subject’s attention is attracted by the word, the response latency (the time taken to respond) will be higher.
In all three of these experiments, the subjects' perception of the stimuli (words or photos) was tested with the subjects. There was no difference between conservatives and liberals in their evaluations of the positiveness or negativeness of the stimuli.
Subjects who tested as more conservative took longer to respond when the text was a negative word. The correlation r was .38. Response time with negative words tended to be longer the more conservative the subject, while response time with negative words tended shorter the more liberal the subject. Response times with positive words weren’t different between conservatives and liberals.
In Experiment 2, political ideology was assessed based on an expanded list of questions otherwise like those used in Experiment 1. The test this time was a Dot-Probe Task. Two photos are shown to the subject side-by-side on their computer screen. After the pictures vanish, a dot (the “probe”) is shown where one of the photos had been. Subjects are tasked to indicate as quickly as they can on which side of the screen the dot appeared, by pressing a key.
One of the photos in each case was “positive” (a flower, baby, etc.) and the other “negative” (a hurricane, shark). The subject should locate and respond to the dot probe more quickly if it appears in place of the photo that he or she was attending to.
A high level of conservative ideology was associated with quicker location of the dot probe if it appeared where a negative photo had been. The correlation r for this association was .36.
In Experiment 3, political ideology was evaluated with a set of fifteen questions that added economic and social issues to the moral tolerance questions that largely comprised the measurement in the first two experiments. Subjects were also evaluated for Need for Closure and Need for Cognition, both of which correlated with political ideology at low (.19 and -.18) but statistically significant levels.
The lab test performed by the subjects was the same Dot-Probe Task as in Experiment 2.
The basic result of Experiment 3 was the same as Experiment 2. Conservatives responded to the dot more quickly when it appeared in the place of the negative photo. Need for Closure and Need for Cognition were found to associate very weakly with the response time differences.
All three trials provided demonstrations that higher conservatism resulted in more attention to negative stimuli than to positive stimuli, as compared to liberals. The positive and negative stimuli were not pertinent to the task that was assigned to the subject, which was to decide the color or to locate the dot as quickly as possible. Greater attention to those negative stimuli therefore is interpreted as greater interest in them.
Our brains are designed so that they assess stimuli for their importance as early as is possible, especially for signs of danger. Most of what our senses feed to our brains is quickly and subconsciously ignored. In that way we focus our mental resources on what is important. The experimental results show that conservatives are likely to perceive more negative input than are liberals. The results also suggest that danger and risk tend to be very accessible in conservative minds, which idea is confirmed by many other types of evidence.
These tests were all performed by college students, but beyond that they tell us nothing about when in life these biases begin. From the time the biases develop, the individual is unconsciously and automatically affected by this filter. It’s probably safe to say either that conservatives experience the world more negatively than do liberals, or that liberals experience it more positively.
Next: God On Our Side: The Christian Soul and Moral Ideology
More information:
[Carraro 2012] “The Automatic Conservative: Ideology-Based Attentional Asymmetries in the Processing of Valenced Information,” Carraro, Luciana, Castello, Luigi, and Macchiallla, Claudia, Public Library of Science, 2011.
© 2021, Ross A. Hangartner