POLITICSNext they used an eye-tracking device to determine how much time
volunteers spent looking at a collage of pictures—positive and negative
ones displayed at the same time. Both groups, liberal and conserva-
tive, spent more time looking at the negative pictures. This result is
consistent with the universal phenomenon of loss aversion. However,
the conservatives spent much more time gazing at the fear-provoking
images, while the liberals divided their attention more evenly. Evidence
of loss aversion was present in both groups, but it was more pronounced
among conservatives.
WE HAVE WAYS OF MAKING YOU CONSERVATIVEThe relationship between conservatism and threat goes in both direc-
tions. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to focus on threat. At
the same time, when people of either inclination feel threatened, they
become more conservative. It’s well known that terrorist attacks boost the
popularity of conservative candidates. But even small threats—threats
so small we’re not even consciously aware of them—nudge people to
the right.
To test the relationship between subtle threat and conservative ide-
ology, researchers approached students on a college campus and asked
them to fill out a survey regarding their political beliefs. Half the par-
ticipants were seated in an area next to a hand sanitizer, a reminder
of the risk of infection; the other half were taken to a different area.
Those who sat near the hand sanitizer reported higher levels of moral,
social, and fiscal conservatism. The same result occurred when a sepa-
rate group of students was asked to use a germ-killing hand wipe before
sitting down at a computer to answer the survey questions. It’s worth
noting that elections are held during flu season, and touch-screen vot-
ing machines spread germs. As a result, it’s not uncommon to see hand
sanitizer dispensers available for voters’ use at polling places.
Professor Glenn D. Wilson, a psychologist who studies the influence
of evolution on human behavior, joked that during election season,