Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T08:12:45.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychophysiology, cognition, and political differences

Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2021

Jordan Mansell Open the ORCID record for Jordan Mansell [Opens in a new window] ,
Allison Harell Open the ORCID record for Allison Harell [Opens in a new window] ,
Elisabeth Gidengil  and
Patrick A. Stewart Open the ORCID record for Patrick A. Stewart [Opens in a new window]
Jordan Mansell
Affiliation:
Network for Economic and Social Trends, Western University
Allison Harell
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Elisabeth Gidengil
Affiliation:
McGill University
Patrick A. Stewart*
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Fayetteville
*
Corresponding author: Patrick Stewart, Email: pastewar@uark.edu
Get access

Abstract

We introduce the Politics and the Life Sciences special issue on Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences. This issue represents the second special issue funded by the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences that adheres to the Open Science Framework for registered reports (RR). Here pre-analysis plans (PAPs) are peer-reviewed and given in-principle acceptance (IPA) prior to data being collected and/or analyzed, and are published contingent upon the preregistration of the study being followed as proposed. Bound by a common theme of the importance of incorporating psychophysiological perspectives into the study of politics, broadly defined, the articles in this special issue feature a unique set of research questions and methodologies. In the following, we summarize the findings, discuss the innovations produced by this research, and highlight the importance of open science for the future of political science research.

Keywords

Registered report (RR)pre-analysis plan (PAP)preregistrationin-principle acceptance (IPA)psychophysiologycognitionpolitical differencesopen science
Type
Special Issue: Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Fall 2021 , pp. 137 - 141
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnhart, L. (1981). Aristotle on political reasoning: A commentary on The Rhetoric. Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., Gothreau, C., & Arceneaux, K. (2020). Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 613–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., & Homan, M. D. (2020). Yikes! Are we disgusted by politicians? Politics and the Life Sciences, 39(2), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., & Rooduijn, M. (2021). Hot politics? Affective responses to political rhetoric. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzer, A., & Jacobs, C. M. (2011). Gender and physiological effects in connecting disgust to political preferences. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1297–1313.Google Scholar
Friesen, A., Ksiazkiewicz, A., & Gothreau, C. (2021). Political taste: Exploring how perception of bitter substances may reveal risk tolerance and political preferences. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), 152–171.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., Oskarsson, S., Littvay, L., Dawes, C. T., … & Martin, N. G. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisbourg, E., & Feitosa, F. (2021). Does music affect citizens’ evaluations of candidates? Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), 172–178.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keating, C. F., Mazur, A., Segall, M. H., Cysneiros, P. G., Kilbride, J. E., Leahy, P., … Wirsing, R. (1981). Culture and the perception of social dominance from facial expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ksiazkiewicz, A., & Friesen, A. (2019). The higher power of religiosity over personality on political ideology. Political Behavior, 43, 637–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M., Cross, D. V., Tursky, B., & Tanenhaus, J. (1975). The psychophysical scaling and validation of a political support scale. American Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 611–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, D. (1986). Power seekers are different: Further biochemical evidence. American Political Science Review, 80(1), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansell, J., Mock, S., Rhea, C., Tecza, A., & Peireder, J. (2021). Measuring attitudes as a complex system: Structured thinking and support for the Canadian carbon tax. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), 179–201.Google Scholar
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, R. D. (1989). The nature of politics. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McHugo, G. J., Lanzetta, J. T., Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D., & Englis, B. G. (1985). Emotional reactions to a political leader’s expressive displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1513–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osmundsen, M., Hendry, D., Laustsen, L., Smith, K., & Petersen, M. B. (2019). The psychophysiology of political ideology: Replications, reanalysis and recommendations. Journal of Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/714780Google Scholar
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., … Hibbing, J. R. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321(5896), 1667–1670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, M. B., Giessing, A., & Nielsen, J. (2015). Physiological responses and partisan bias: Beyond self-reported measures of party identification. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0126922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, S. A., & Somit, A. (1982). Methodological problems associated with a biologically oriented social science. In Wiegele, T. C., (Ed.), Biology and the social sciences: An emerging revolution (pp. 349–366). Westview Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, S. A., & Somit, A. (2017). What is biopolitics?. In Peterson, S. A. & Somit, A. (Eds.), Handbook of biology and politics (pp. 3–17). Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Tybur, J. M., & Stewart, P. A. (2020). Disgust and political attitudes: Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue. Politics and the Life Sciences, 39(2), 129–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ploger, G., Dunaway, J., Fournier, P., & Soroka, S. (2021). The psychophysiological correlates of cognitive dissonance. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), 202–212.Google Scholar
Rubenson, D. (2021). Tie my hands loosely: Pre-analysis plans in political science. Politics and the Life Sciences, 40(2), 142–151.Google Scholar
Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P. (2013). Red brain, blue brain: Evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLOS ONE, 8(2), e52970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Settle, J. E., Hibbing, M. V., Anspach, N. M., Carlson, T. N., Coe, C. M., Hernandez, E., … & Arceneaux, K. (2020). Political psychophysiology: A primer for interested researchers and consumers. Politics and the Life Sciences, 39(1), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). The mind body connection: Psychophysiology as an approach to studying political attitudes and behaviors. In Hatemi, P. K. & McDermott, R. (Eds.), Man is by nature a political animal: Evolution, biology, and politics (pp. 224–246). University of Chicago Press.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soroka, S., Fournier, P., & Nir, L. (2019). Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(38), 18888–18892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TARG Meta-Research Group, & Chambers, C. (2018). Registered reports funding models: A feasibility study. https://osf.io/h2wn4Google Scholar
Wahlke, J. C. (1979). Pre-behavioralism in political science. American Political Science Review, 73(1), 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlke, J. C., & Lodge, M. G. (1972). Psychophysiological measures of political attitudes and behavior. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16(4), 505–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, M. W., & Sumi, D. (1979). Studies in the Physiological Component of Aggression-Related Social Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 528–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, C., Stolle, D., Gidengil, E., & Fellows, L. K. (2015). Lateral orbitofrontal cortex links social impressions to political choices. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(22), 8507–8514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed