title: The automatic conservative: ideology-based attentional asymmetries in the processing of valenced information.
abstract: Research has widely explored the differences between conservatives and liberals, and it has been also recently demonstrated that conservatives display different reactions toward valenced stimuli. However, previous studies have not yet fully illuminated the cognitive underpinnings of these differences. In the current work, we argued that political ideology is related to selective attention processes, so that negative stimuli are more likely to automatically grab the attention of conservatives as compared to liberals. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that negative (vs. positive) information impaired the performance of conservatives, more than liberals, in an Emotional Stroop Task. This finding was confirmed in Experiment 2 and in Experiment 3 employing a Dot-Probe Task, demonstrating that threatening stimuli were more likely to attract the attention of conservatives. Overall, results support the conclusion that people embracing conservative views of the world display an automatic selective attention for negative stimuli.
authors.affiliation: Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e della Socializzazione, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. luciana.carraro@unipd.it
authors.forename: Luciana
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Carraro
authors.forename: Luigi
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Castelli
authors.forename: Claudia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Macchiella
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D004644:Emotions / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011057:Politics; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:307-37
references.pmid: 19035826
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2007 Oct;10(10):1246-7
references.pmid: 17828253
references.citation: J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008 Sep;44(5):1322-1327
references.pmid: 19727428
references.citation: Am Psychol. 2006 Oct;61(7):651-70
references.pmid: 17032067
references.citation: J Psychol. 2009 Oct;143(5):449-63
references.pmid: 19943397
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1973 Feb;25(2):286-8
references.pmid: 4687932
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2003 May;129(3):339-75
references.pmid: 12784934
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2011 Apr 26;21(8):677-80
references.pmid: 21474316
references.citation: Am Psychol. 2004 Oct;59(7):581-94
references.pmid: 15491254
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Sep;61(3):380-91
references.pmid: 1941510
references.citation: Science. 2008 Sep 19;321(5896):1667-70
references.pmid: 18801995
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Jun 4;393(6684):470-4
references.pmid: 9624002
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Jan 18;5(1):e8733
references.pmid: 20090906
references.citation: J Soc Psychol. 2001 Apr;141(2):233-43
references.pmid: 11372568
references.citation: J Abnorm Psychol. 1986 Feb;95(1):15-20
references.pmid: 3700842
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;33(7):989-1007
references.pmid: 17620621
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 1984 Jun;48(3):306-7
references.pmid: 16367530
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Jun;19(6):565-72
references.pmid: 18578846
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Nov;65(5):861-76
references.pmid: 8246114