Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24970428›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2014

Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology.

John R Hibbing, Kevin B Smith, John R Alford

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–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

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Intelligent Systems, Vulnerable Minds: A Framework for Radicalization to Violence in the Age of AI.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John R HibbingDepartment of Political Science,University of Nebraska-Lincoln,Lincoln,NE 68588.jhibbing@unl.eduwww.unl.edu/polphyslab.
Kevin B SmithDepartment of Political Science,University of Nebraska-Lincoln,Lincoln,NE 68588.ksmith1@unl.eduwww.unl.edu/polphyslab.
John R AlfordDepartment of Political Science,Rice University,Houston,TX 77005.jra@rice.eduhttp://politicalscience.rice.edu/

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disputes between those holding differing political views are ubiquitous and deep-seated, and they often follow common, recognizable lines. The supporters of tradition and stability, sometimes referred to as conservatives, do battle with the supporters of innovation and reform, sometimes referred to as liberals. Understanding the correlates of those distinct political orientations is probably a prerequisite for managing political disputes, which are a source of social conflict that can lead to frustration and even bloodshed. A rapidly growing body of empirical evidence documents a multitude of ways in which liberals and conservatives differ from each other in purviews of life with little direct connection to politics, from tastes in art to desire for closure and from disgust sensitivity to the tendency to pursue new information, but the central theme of the differences is a matter of debate. In this article, we argue that one organizing element of the many differences between liberals and conservatives is the nature of their physiological and psychological responses to features of the environment that are negative. Compared with liberals, conservatives tend to register greater physiological responses to such stimuli and also to devote more psychological resources to them. Operating from this point of departure, we suggest approaches for refining understanding of the broad relationship between political views and response to the negative. We conclude with a discussion of normative implications, stressing that identifying differences across ideological groups is not tantamount to declaring one ideology superior to another.

Indexed as

AttitudeIndividualityModels, PsychologicalPoliticsHumansPersonality

Identifiers

PMID24970428

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.