Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22271780›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2012

The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences.

Michael D Dodd, Amanda Balzer, Carly M Jacobs, Michael W Gruszczynski, Kevin B Smith, John R Hibbing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Is negativity bias intuitive for liberals and conservatives?Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Intolerance of uncertainty modulates brain-to-brain synchrony during politically polarized perception.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  13. Political games of attack and defence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Dispositional Fear and Political Attitudes.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael D DoddDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
Amanda Balzer
Carly M Jacobs
Michael W Gruszczynski
Kevin B Smith
John R Hibbing

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report evidence that individual-level variation in people's physiological and attentional responses to aversive and appetitive stimuli are correlated with broad political orientations. Specifically, we find that greater orientation to aversive stimuli tends to be associated with right-of-centre and greater orientation to appetitive (pleasing) stimuli with left-of-centre political inclinations. These findings are consistent with recent evidence that political views are connected to physiological predispositions but are unique in incorporating findings on variation in directed attention that make it possible to understand additional aspects of the link between the physiological and the political.

Indexed as

Physiological PhenomenaPoliticsAttentionCognitionEmotionsGalvanic Skin ResponseHumansNeuropsychological TestsPersonalitySocial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID22271780
PMCPMC3260844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.