Periodic Reporting for period 1 - DeepBias (Deep Bias: Examining the Cognitive and Physiological Underpinnings of Intergroup Prejudice)
Reporting period: 2020-09-01 to 2022-08-31
The world is increasingly divided by harshly conflicting viewpoints on issues relating to politics, morality, and equality between racial and religious groups. People on both sides of these divides tend to strongly feel that their social and political attitudes are objectively correct, and that they have arrived at these attitudes via dispassionate, rational deliberation. That is, most people generally tend to feel that their views are simply the result of having carefully considered the issues at hand and then having chosen the side that best aligned with their personal values and interests.
However, while it is true that much of our social and political thought can be characterized as rational to some degree, research in the social sciences has increasingly demonstrated that our political and intergroup attitudes are shaped at least in part by low-level, often nonconscious psychological and biological influences. Yet, despite this intriguing fact, we continue to know relatively little about when and how such low-level factors shape people’s attitudes and opinions. In this project, called “DeepBias,” my aim has been to understand (1) which specific biological and cognitive factors can play a role in shaping our political and intergroup attitudes, and (2) how, exactly, these processes unfold. To test these questions, I have used an array of both physiological measurement tools (e.g. skin conductance and heart rate monitors assessing physiological arousal) and cognitive and behavioral measures (e.g. assessing different aspects of sensitivity to threat and disgust). This work has shed important new light on how our political and intergroup attitudes are formed—and show that our views are not as rational and dispassionate as we often like to believe.
However, while it is true that much of our social and political thought can be characterized as rational to some degree, research in the social sciences has increasingly demonstrated that our political and intergroup attitudes are shaped at least in part by low-level, often nonconscious psychological and biological influences. Yet, despite this intriguing fact, we continue to know relatively little about when and how such low-level factors shape people’s attitudes and opinions. In this project, called “DeepBias,” my aim has been to understand (1) which specific biological and cognitive factors can play a role in shaping our political and intergroup attitudes, and (2) how, exactly, these processes unfold. To test these questions, I have used an array of both physiological measurement tools (e.g. skin conductance and heart rate monitors assessing physiological arousal) and cognitive and behavioral measures (e.g. assessing different aspects of sensitivity to threat and disgust). This work has shed important new light on how our political and intergroup attitudes are formed—and show that our views are not as rational and dispassionate as we often like to believe.
During this project I conducted dozens of psychological studies using employing cutting-edge physiological and social-cognitive measurement tools. These studies examined the factors that shape our political and intergroup attitudes across a wide range of domains and contexts. This research can be divided into three broad areas:
In the first broad area of work, I examined how our political and intergroup attitudes are shaped by physiological sensitivities to different forms of sensory stimuli. For example, in one line of research, I found evidence of an association between interoceptive sensitivity—that is, sensitivity to the internal states and processes of one’s own physical body—and political conservatism. According to our findings so far, the psychological processes that underlie this association are as follows: Individuals who are more interoceptively sensitive appear to place greater trust in intuition and “gut feelings,” as well as to be more sensitive to disgust. In turn, greater disgust sensitivity and faith in intuition appear to predispose people towards adopting a more politically conservative ideology. Based on our preliminary findings, we submitted a Registered Report proposal that will be published in the journal Politics and the Life Sciences.
In the second broad area of work, I used the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand how people form attitudes towards novel political topics, and the degree to which those attitudes are shaped by individual differences in traits such as threat and disgust sensitivity, a tendency to prefer deliberative (versus intuitive) cognitive processing, as well as a range of other factors. For example, in one line of work, which was published in the journal Political Psychology, I found that the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States was explained by ideological differences in a large number of social-cognitive traits, including general propensities toward conspiratorial ideation and sensitivity to threat and resource loss.
In the third broad area of work, I have examined the social-cognitive underpinnings of political liberalism and conservatism, in order to better understand the different psychological traits that might predispose an individual towards adopting one political ideology over another. For example, in one line of work, I have found evidence that liberals and conservative may differ in how they conceptualize their social ingroups (i.e. the groups to which they personally belong) and outgroups (i.e. the groups to which they do not belong)—differences that might in turn shape the ideology that a person develops. Based on our preliminary findings, we submitted a Registered Report which will be published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
In the first broad area of work, I examined how our political and intergroup attitudes are shaped by physiological sensitivities to different forms of sensory stimuli. For example, in one line of research, I found evidence of an association between interoceptive sensitivity—that is, sensitivity to the internal states and processes of one’s own physical body—and political conservatism. According to our findings so far, the psychological processes that underlie this association are as follows: Individuals who are more interoceptively sensitive appear to place greater trust in intuition and “gut feelings,” as well as to be more sensitive to disgust. In turn, greater disgust sensitivity and faith in intuition appear to predispose people towards adopting a more politically conservative ideology. Based on our preliminary findings, we submitted a Registered Report proposal that will be published in the journal Politics and the Life Sciences.
In the second broad area of work, I used the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand how people form attitudes towards novel political topics, and the degree to which those attitudes are shaped by individual differences in traits such as threat and disgust sensitivity, a tendency to prefer deliberative (versus intuitive) cognitive processing, as well as a range of other factors. For example, in one line of work, which was published in the journal Political Psychology, I found that the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States was explained by ideological differences in a large number of social-cognitive traits, including general propensities toward conspiratorial ideation and sensitivity to threat and resource loss.
In the third broad area of work, I have examined the social-cognitive underpinnings of political liberalism and conservatism, in order to better understand the different psychological traits that might predispose an individual towards adopting one political ideology over another. For example, in one line of work, I have found evidence that liberals and conservative may differ in how they conceptualize their social ingroups (i.e. the groups to which they personally belong) and outgroups (i.e. the groups to which they do not belong)—differences that might in turn shape the ideology that a person develops. Based on our preliminary findings, we submitted a Registered Report which will be published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Taken together, the findings generated in these lines of research have provided important insight into how our social and political attitudes are formed. In particular, they illustrate that our political attitudes are influenced by a range of factors, many outside of our conscious awareness, and they provide insight into the exact processes by which these low-level influences come to shape how we see the social and political world. These findings have important implications for real-world domains such as political communication and motivating people to engage in activism.