Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-fz4lj Total loading time: 0.256 Render date: 2021-07-24T09:12:25.307Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Testing the effects of pathogen threat and sexual strategies on political ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

Natalie J. Shook
Affiliation:
West Virginia University and University of Connecticut
Benjamin Oosterhoff
Affiliation:
Montana State University
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

Disgust has been consistently associated with greater political conservatism. Two explanations have been proposed for this link. According to a pathogen threat model, disgust serves a pathogen-avoidance function, encouraging more conservative ideology, whereas a sexual strategies model suggests that this link is explained by variability in short-term versus long-term mating goals. In two preregistered studies using a college student and community sample (total N = 1,950), we examined whether experimentally manipulating pathogen threat and mate availability produced differences in political ideology and whether these differences were explained by disgust and sociosexual attitudes. Across both studies, we did not find evidence that manipulating pathogen threat or mate availability resulted in change in political ideology. In Study 1, manipulating mate availability was indirectly associated with greater political conservativism through stronger sociosexual attitudes that favor monogamy. These findings failed to replicate in Study 2. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

Type
Article
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aarøe, L., Petersen, M. B., & Arceneaux, K. (2017). The behavioral immune system shapes political intuitions: Why and how individual differences in disgust sensitivity underlie opposition to immigration. American Political Science Review, 111(2), 277294.10.1017/S0003055416000770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, T. G., Stewart, P. A., & Blanchar, J. C. (2014). Disgust and the politics of sex: Exposure to a disgusting odorant increases politically conservative views on sex and decreases support for gay marriage. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e95572.10.1371/journal.pone.0095572CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahn, W. Y., Kishida, K. T., Gu, X., Lohrenz, T., Harvey, A., Alford, J. R., … & Montague, P. R. (2014). Nonpolitical images evoke neural predictors of political ideology. Current Biology, 24(22), 2693269910.1016/j.cub.2014.09.050CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar
Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M., Alley, T. R., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Mating strategy, disgust, and food neophobia. Appetite, 85, 3035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Sex differences in disgust: Why are women more easily disgusted than men? Emotion Review, 10(2), 149160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnocky, S., Woodruff, N., & Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Men’s sociosexuality is sensitive to changes in mate availability. Personal Relationships, 23(1), 172181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, H. (2018, August 8). Evidence that a large amount of low quality responses on Mturk can be detected with repeated GPS coordinates. https://www.maxhuibai.com/blog/evidence-that-responses-from-repeating-gps-are-randomGoogle Scholar
Billingsley, J., Lieberman, D., & Tybur, J. M. (2018). Sexual disgust trumps pathogen disgust in predicting voter behavior during the 2016 US presidential election. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918764170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, C. J., & Inbar, Y. (2015). Disgust sensitivity predicts political ideology and policy attitudes in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 2738.10.1002/ejsp.2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, C. J., Dweck, C. S., Ross, L., Kay, A. C., & Mislavsky, N. O. (2009). Political mindset: Effects of schema priming on liberal-conservative political positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 890895.10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, S., & Piston, S. (2017). Explaining public support for counterproductive homelessness policy: The role of disgust. Political Behavior, 39(2), 503525.10.1007/s11109-016-9366-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, S., & Wendell, D. G. (2016). How disgust influences health purity attitudes. Political Behavior, 38, 155178.10.1007/s11109-015-9310-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, V., & Biran, A. (2001). Dirt, disgust, and disease: Is hygiene in our genes? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 44(1), 1731.10.1353/pbm.2001.0001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., Du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 7593.10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elad-Strenger, J., Proch, J., & Kessler, T. (2020). Is disgust a “conservative” emotion? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(6), 896912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 333353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, M., Antonenko, O., Willer, R., Horberg, E. J., & John, O. P. (2014). Gut check: Reappraisal of disgust helps explain liberal–conservative differences on issues of purity. Emotion, 14(3), 513521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17(2), 7595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24(10), 19181927.10.1177/0956797613480187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 537544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ji, T., Tybur, J. M., & van Vugt, M. (2019). Generalized or origin-specific out-group prejudice? The role of temporary and chronic pathogen-avoidance motivation in intergroup relations. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919826851CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kam, C. D., & Estes, B. A. (2016). Disgust sensitivity and public demand for protection. Journal of Politics, 78(2), 481496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015a). Does incidental disgust amplify moral judgment? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 518536.10.1177/1745691615583128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015b). Our conclusions were tentative, but appropriate: A reply to Schnall et al. (2015). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 539540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. J., Sohn, Y., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Emotion regulation as the foundation of political attitudes: does reappraisal decrease support for conservative policies? PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83143.10.1371/journal.pone.0083143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makhanova, A., Plant, E. A., Monroe, A. E., & Maner, J. K. (2019). Binding together to avoid illness: Pathogen avoidance and moral worldviews. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 182204.10.1037/ebs0000141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarrete, C. D., & Fessler, D. M. (2006). Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 270282.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterhoff, B., & Shook, N. J. (2017). From drug laws to recreational substance use: The adaptationist role of disgust sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 544553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterhoff, B., Shook, N. J., & Ford, C. G. (2018). Is that disgust I see? Political ideology and biased visual attention. Behavioural Brain Research, 336, 227235.10.1016/j.bbr.2017.09.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 11131135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717731.10.3758/BF03206553CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rekker, R., Keijsers, L., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2015). Political attitudes in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Developmental changes in mean level, polarization, rank-order stability, and correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 41, 136147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, K. G., & Richardson, C. M. E. (2014). Classification challenges in perfectionism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(4), 641648.10.1037/cou0000040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2015). Landy and Goodwin (2015) confirmed most of our findings then drew the wrong conclusions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 537538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaller, M. (2006). Parasites, behavioral defenses, and the social psychological mechanism through which cultures are evoked. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 96137.Google Scholar
Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2016). Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 315324.10.1177/1745691615621275CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shook, N. J., Ford, C., & Boggs, S. (2017). Dangerous worldview: a mediator of the relation between disgust sensitivity and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 252261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, N. J., Oosterhoff, B., Terrizzi, J. A., & Brady, K. M. (2017). “Dirty politics”: The role of disgust sensitivity in voting. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 284297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, N. J., Oosterhoff, B., Terrizzi, J., & Clay, R. (2018). Disease avoidance: An evolutionary perspective on personality and individual differences. In Zeigler-Hill, V. & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 133158). Sage.Google Scholar
Shook, N. J., Terrizzi, J. A., Clay, R., & Oosterhoff, B. (2015). In defense of pathogen disgust and disease avoidance: A response to Tybur et al. (2015). Evolution & Human Behavior, 36(6), 498504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. B., Oxley, D., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left-right political orientations. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e25552.10.1371/journal.pone.0025552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spielmann, S.S., MacDonald, G., & Wilson, A. E. (2009). On the rebound: Focusing on someone new helps anxiously attached individuals let go of ex-partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 13821394. doi:10.1177/0146167209341580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: A meta-analysis. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34(2), 99108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrizzi, J. A. Jr, Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 587592.10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R., Fincher, C. L., & Aran, D. (2009). Parasites, democratization, and the liberalization of values across contemporary countries. Biological Reviews, 84(1), 113131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tybur, J. M., Bryan, A. D., Magnan, R. E., & Hooper, A. E. C. (2011). Smells like safe sex: Olfactory pathogen primes increase intentions to use condoms. Psychological Science, 22(4), 478480.10.1177/0956797611400096CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tybur, J. M., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Pollet, T. V. (2014). Behavioral immune system methods: Surveying the present to shape the future. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(4), 247283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Inbar, Y., Aarøe, L., Barclay, P., Barlow, F. K., De Barra, M., … & Consedine, N. S. (2016). Parasite stress and pathogen avoidance relate to distinct dimensions of political ideology across 30 nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(44), 1240812413.10.1073/pnas.1607398113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tybur, J. M., Inbar, Y., Güler, E., & Molho, C. (2015). Is the relationship between pathogen avoidance and ideological conservatism explained by sexual strategies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6), 489497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicious, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 103122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, A. E., Kenrick, D. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (2013). Beauty at the ballot box: Disease threats predict preferences for physically attractive leaders. Psychological Science, 24(12), 24292436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Testing the effects of pathogen threat and sexual strategies on political ideology
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Testing the effects of pathogen threat and sexual strategies on political ideology
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Testing the effects of pathogen threat and sexual strategies on political ideology
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *