The study tracks how subjects respond to various images that
are categorized as positive and negative; preliminary results show that those
who concentrate on positive images tend to be liberal, and those who focus on
negative ones are usually conservative.
Conservatives in the study also exhibit increased sweating and blinking
when exposed to negative images, suggesting they are more sensitive to
threatening stimuli. Further, they look
at these negative images more frequently and for longer than do liberals with
positive stimuli.
University of Nebraska investigators are quick to point out
that these findings account for just a fraction of what influences political affiliation;
nonetheless, they certainly have relevance.
Perhaps many actors on both sides of the aisle really do perceive the issues differently on a psychological level,
and the resulting gridlock is legitimate (and not artificially designed). Or perhaps the designers of political
communications intentionally craft messages to rouse the attention of the
target audience, thus contributing to polarization.
The implications of the findings may seem obvious, but the
University of Nebraska’s research team has genuinely advanced understanding of
what material grabs liberals’ and conservatives’ attention. Partisan responses and inclinations are
obvious in the current election cycle – Obama still speaks of aspirations for
the future, while his Republican opponents focus on the negative aspects of
Obama’s presidency, and the threat it poses to America’s future.
What are other possible implications of Hibbing’s findings? What do they suggest about the deeper worldviews
of conservatives and liberals? And could
the results be used to justify/promote further political gridlock, or will we
find a way to reconcile how the two sides perceive important issues?
No comments:
Post a Comment