The Psychophysiology of Freedom
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 4, Heft 2, S. 355
ISSN: 1467-9221
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 4, Heft 2, S. 355
ISSN: 1467-9221
In: The Soviet review, Band 21, Heft 2, S. 84-98
In: International labour review, Band 14, S. 55-71
ISSN: 0020-7780
In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
"Psychophysiology in Political Decision-Making Research" published on by Oxford University Press.
In: The Sage library of methods in social and personality psychology
In: NBER working paper series 8508
In: NBER Working Paper No. w8508
SSRN
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 84, Heft 1, S. 50-66
ISSN: 1468-2508
This article presents a large-scale, empirical evaluation of the psychophysiological correlates of political ideology and, in particular, the claim that conservatives react with higher levels of electrodermal activity to threatening stimuli than liberals. We (1) conduct two large replications of this claim, using locally representative samples of Danes and Americans; (2) reanalyze all published studies and evaluate their reliability and validity; and (3) test several features to enhance the validity of psychophysiological measures and offer a number of recommendations. Overall, we find little empirical support for the claim. This is caused by significant reliability and validity problems related to measuring threat sensitivity using electrodermal activity. When assessed reliably, electrodermal activity in the replications and published studies captures individual differences in the physiological changes associated with attention shifts, which are unrelated to ideology. In contrast to psychophysiological reactions, self-reported emotional reactions to threatening stimuli are reliably associated with ideology.
BASE
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS ; a journal of political behavior, ethics, and policy, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 101-117
ISSN: 1471-5457
AbstractThe past decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of studies employing psychophysiological methods to explain variation in political attitudes and behavior. However, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of physiological data present novel challenges for political scientists unfamiliar with the underlying biological concepts and technical skills necessary for utilizing this approach. Our objective in this article is to maximize the effectiveness of future work utilizing psychophysiological measurement by providing guidance on how the techniques can be employed most fruitfully as a complement to, not a replacement for, existing methods. We develop clear, step-by-step instructions for how physiological research should be conducted and provide a discussion of the issues commonly faced by scholars working with these measures. Our hope is that this article will be a useful resource for both neophytes and experienced scholars in lowering the start-up costs to doing this work and assessing it as part of the peer review process. More broadly, in the spirit of the open science framework, we aim to foster increased communication, collaboration, and replication of findings across political science labs utilizing psychophysiological methods.
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS ; a journal of political behavior, ethics, and policy, Band 40, Heft 2, S. 137-141
ISSN: 1471-5457
AbstractWe introduce thePolitics and the Life Sciencesspecial issue on Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences. This issue represents the second special issue funded by the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences that adheres to the Open Science Framework for registered reports (RR). Here pre-analysis plans (PAPs) are peer-reviewed and given in-principle acceptance (IPA) prior to data being collected and/or analyzed, and are published contingent upon the preregistration of the study being followed as proposed. Bound by a common theme of the importance of incorporating psychophysiological perspectives into the study of politics, broadly defined, the articles in this special issue feature a unique set of research questions and methodologies. In the following, we summarize the findings, discuss the innovations produced by this research, and highlight the importance of open science for the future of political science research.