This illuminating analysis suffers from two ambiguities. First, the liberal–conservative opposition may refer to attitudes regarding change or it may refer to left-wing and right-wing policies. There is presumably some correlation between the two, but they are not equivalent. For instance, the All-India Progressive Writers Association advocated socialist and egalitarian policies along with the retention of many Indian cultural traditions (Coppola Reference Coppola and Coppola1974, p. 40). Similarly, conservatives work not to conserve, but to dismantle the welfare state. There is a question, then, as to how negativity bears on conservatism in these different senses. Second, there is an ambiguity in negativity. As the authors indicate, liberals are more likely to envision disastrous consequences from environmental decline, whereas conservatives are more likely to see disastrous consequences in mass immigration. In some cases, then, it seems that liberals have greater negativity bias. These issues may be addressed in part by considering the nature and eliciting conditions of the motivational systems involved.
The problem of negativity ambiguity is perhaps more straightforward. The authors note that liberals score higher on empathy than conservatives (Hirsh et al. Reference Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu and Peterson2010). Empathy is a form of emotion system activation – specifically, the activation of a system in parallel with that of some other person, predominantly for an aversive emotion (i.e., we empathize with a target's pain more readily than his or her joy [see Royzman & Rozin Reference Royzman and Rozin2006].) This may suggest that the negativity bias is greater in conservatives for prudential considerations (such as possible employment competition), but greater in liberals for (non-prudential) empathic targets (e.g., future generations suffering depleted resources). The tendencies are related in that intensified prudential negativity is likely to reduce empathic sensitivity (Preston & de Waal Reference Preston and de Waal2002, p. 8). In this sense, prudential negativity bias would be prior and determinative, as the target article suggests.
On the other hand, even this is likely to be overly simple. Proneness to empathy varies with a number of factors, including in-group versus out-group divisions (Ambady et al. Reference Ambady, Chiao, Chiu, Deldin, Cacioppo, Visser and Pickett2006, p. 213) as defined by identity categories (such as nationality or race; for a fuller discussion of emotion and identity categories, see Hogan Reference Hogan2009). The presence and nature of such divisions may modulate the proneness of individuals toward empathy, and may even explain some of the difference in empathy itself. For example, it may appear obvious that some people are inclined to experience strong motivational responses to identity divisions, whereas others are not. But a priori it seems equally possible that people vary primarily in which (not whether) identity divisions have strong motivational consequences for them. In this case, part of the conservative–liberal difference may be less a matter of psychological properties per se than of social context. For example, someone whose most important identity division is Hindu versus non-Hindu may be liberal in the U.S. but conservative in India, where that identity division is more socially functional. The difference would not be in broad psychological propensities as such, but in the social significance of some particular manifestation of those propensities – here, a specific identity category.
Another important variable concerns precisely which emotion systems are involved (on the nature of emotion systems, see Ch. 2 of Hogan Reference Hogan2011). Specifically, the key emotion systems for negativity bias would seem to be disgust, fear, and anger. Here, too, eliciting conditions for the emotion are important. We may distinguish broad, situational activations from activations for a defined target – for example, diffuse social anxiety versus fear of some person. Among other things, this may be valuable in clarifying the relation between different senses of conservative or liberal. Conservatism in the root sense may be associated with situational versions of the three systems, because an inclination to situational negativity should be assuaged by what is familiar. In contrast, we would expect specific policy responses to bear on defined target activations. For example, we would expect disgust arousal at homosexuality to be connected with opposition to gay marriage (see Nussbaum Reference Nussbaum2001, p. 205, 347); fear of crime to promote advocacy of strict policing (see, for example, Gardner Reference Gardner2008, pp. 209–213); and anger system activation for crimes already committed to encourage victim seeking and thus advocacy of harsh punishment (on victim seeking, see Berkowitz Reference Berkowitz, Wyer and Srull1993).
This division would help to explain the partial correlation between the two senses of conservatism, because a propensity toward situational versions of these emotions would foster particular arousals as well (fearful persons being more likely to be afraid). The two sorts of conservatism should diverge at points where policies are based on well-established empathic responses (good for anti-change conservatives) or on novel, non-empathic considerations (good for right-wing conservatives). On the other hand, the differentiation of emotion systems may lead us to wonder why various forms of aversive response tend to cluster together, forming liberal and conservative platforms, rather than remaining separated in insular policies (regarding gay marriage, policing, etc.), in keeping with the diversity of views on specific topics, noted by Hibbing et al.
With two small additions, we may begin to answer this final question. First, a strong negative response in any of these systems would tend to become motivationally dominant. Severe disgust at gay sexuality is likely to become a strong motivational force relative to, say, a weak emotional response to the possibility of crime. Second, social dynamics will tend to cluster policies into a limited number of complexes, often tending toward two (see the research on alliances summarized in chapter twelve of Ball Reference Ball2004). In this case, the clustering seems likely to bear on motivational factors, such as prudence versus empathy. In consequence, someone who feels strongly disgusted at gay marriage is unlikely to find a political outlet that opposes gay marriage and also opposes the death penalty. The result may be the partial revision of the person's more peripheral political attitudes. For example, an anti-gay marriage voter might revise more weakly held opposition toward the death penalty, in line with a socially available political platform. Thus it seems plausible that the political consequences of psychological traits will develop in relation to social systems here as well.
You have
Access
This illuminating analysis suffers from two ambiguities. First, the liberal–conservative opposition may refer to attitudes regarding change or it may refer to left-wing and right-wing policies. There is presumably some correlation between the two, but they are not equivalent. For instance, the All-India Progressive Writers Association advocated socialist and egalitarian policies along with the retention of many Indian cultural traditions (Coppola Reference Coppola and Coppola1974, p. 40). Similarly, conservatives work not to conserve, but to dismantle the welfare state. There is a question, then, as to how negativity bears on conservatism in these different senses. Second, there is an ambiguity in negativity. As the authors indicate, liberals are more likely to envision disastrous consequences from environmental decline, whereas conservatives are more likely to see disastrous consequences in mass immigration. In some cases, then, it seems that liberals have greater negativity bias. These issues may be addressed in part by considering the nature and eliciting conditions of the motivational systems involved.
The problem of negativity ambiguity is perhaps more straightforward. The authors note that liberals score higher on empathy than conservatives (Hirsh et al. Reference Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu and Peterson2010). Empathy is a form of emotion system activation – specifically, the activation of a system in parallel with that of some other person, predominantly for an aversive emotion (i.e., we empathize with a target's pain more readily than his or her joy [see Royzman & Rozin Reference Royzman and Rozin2006].) This may suggest that the negativity bias is greater in conservatives for prudential considerations (such as possible employment competition), but greater in liberals for (non-prudential) empathic targets (e.g., future generations suffering depleted resources). The tendencies are related in that intensified prudential negativity is likely to reduce empathic sensitivity (Preston & de Waal Reference Preston and de Waal2002, p. 8). In this sense, prudential negativity bias would be prior and determinative, as the target article suggests.
On the other hand, even this is likely to be overly simple. Proneness to empathy varies with a number of factors, including in-group versus out-group divisions (Ambady et al. Reference Ambady, Chiao, Chiu, Deldin, Cacioppo, Visser and Pickett2006, p. 213) as defined by identity categories (such as nationality or race; for a fuller discussion of emotion and identity categories, see Hogan Reference Hogan2009). The presence and nature of such divisions may modulate the proneness of individuals toward empathy, and may even explain some of the difference in empathy itself. For example, it may appear obvious that some people are inclined to experience strong motivational responses to identity divisions, whereas others are not. But a priori it seems equally possible that people vary primarily in which (not whether) identity divisions have strong motivational consequences for them. In this case, part of the conservative–liberal difference may be less a matter of psychological properties per se than of social context. For example, someone whose most important identity division is Hindu versus non-Hindu may be liberal in the U.S. but conservative in India, where that identity division is more socially functional. The difference would not be in broad psychological propensities as such, but in the social significance of some particular manifestation of those propensities – here, a specific identity category.
Another important variable concerns precisely which emotion systems are involved (on the nature of emotion systems, see Ch. 2 of Hogan Reference Hogan2011). Specifically, the key emotion systems for negativity bias would seem to be disgust, fear, and anger. Here, too, eliciting conditions for the emotion are important. We may distinguish broad, situational activations from activations for a defined target – for example, diffuse social anxiety versus fear of some person. Among other things, this may be valuable in clarifying the relation between different senses of conservative or liberal. Conservatism in the root sense may be associated with situational versions of the three systems, because an inclination to situational negativity should be assuaged by what is familiar. In contrast, we would expect specific policy responses to bear on defined target activations. For example, we would expect disgust arousal at homosexuality to be connected with opposition to gay marriage (see Nussbaum Reference Nussbaum2001, p. 205, 347); fear of crime to promote advocacy of strict policing (see, for example, Gardner Reference Gardner2008, pp. 209–213); and anger system activation for crimes already committed to encourage victim seeking and thus advocacy of harsh punishment (on victim seeking, see Berkowitz Reference Berkowitz, Wyer and Srull1993).
This division would help to explain the partial correlation between the two senses of conservatism, because a propensity toward situational versions of these emotions would foster particular arousals as well (fearful persons being more likely to be afraid). The two sorts of conservatism should diverge at points where policies are based on well-established empathic responses (good for anti-change conservatives) or on novel, non-empathic considerations (good for right-wing conservatives). On the other hand, the differentiation of emotion systems may lead us to wonder why various forms of aversive response tend to cluster together, forming liberal and conservative platforms, rather than remaining separated in insular policies (regarding gay marriage, policing, etc.), in keeping with the diversity of views on specific topics, noted by Hibbing et al.
With two small additions, we may begin to answer this final question. First, a strong negative response in any of these systems would tend to become motivationally dominant. Severe disgust at gay sexuality is likely to become a strong motivational force relative to, say, a weak emotional response to the possibility of crime. Second, social dynamics will tend to cluster policies into a limited number of complexes, often tending toward two (see the research on alliances summarized in chapter twelve of Ball Reference Ball2004). In this case, the clustering seems likely to bear on motivational factors, such as prudence versus empathy. In consequence, someone who feels strongly disgusted at gay marriage is unlikely to find a political outlet that opposes gay marriage and also opposes the death penalty. The result may be the partial revision of the person's more peripheral political attitudes. For example, an anti-gay marriage voter might revise more weakly held opposition toward the death penalty, in line with a socially available political platform. Thus it seems plausible that the political consequences of psychological traits will develop in relation to social systems here as well.