Debunking the threat-sweat thinking theory

Researchers could just as easily say conservatives are 'concerned'

DURHAM -- Voters contemplating such questions as "What should be done about the war in Iraq?" and "How much should be spent on defense?" might be interested to know that, according to a just-published study, the key to their political views lies in their physiological responses to threats.

Researchers studied what they term the "threat response" of 46 adult volunteers by measuring how startled they became when they heard an unexpected noise, and how sweaty their palms became when they saw "threatening images."

According to the authors, those who exhibited a greater threat response were more likely to support the war in Iraq, greater defense spending, capital punishment and "patriotism"; those showing a lesser threat response were more likely to support foreign aid, pacifism, liberal immigration policies and gun control.

These are clusters of attitudes that one would naturally associate with conservative and liberal views (although the authors, for the most part, avoid the use of these terms). The moral of the story? "The degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm violator) threats."

In other words, conservatives feel a whole lot more threatened than liberals.

l l l

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS STUDY, published in the Sept. 19 issue of Science magazine, is that the authors' conclusions are based wholly upon some creative and unwarranted interpretation.

Consider one of the primary techniques used to measures "threat response": skin conductance (i.e., sweaty palms). Skin conductance, as the authors note, "has been closely linked with the psychological concepts of emotion, arousal and attention."

So what the authors were measuring was in fact any kind of "strong emotion, arousal or attention" that might produce sweaty palms. The images classified as "threatening" were: "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it."

But I do not perceive an image of an open wound with maggots, for example, as constituting a "threat." In fact, for any of these images, a wide range of emotional responses are possible, including disgust, surprise, confusion, consternation, discomfort or simply greater attention (not necessarily connected with any definite emotional response).

All of these emotions could cause an increase in skin conductance. In fact, it is entirely plausible that any of these pictures could elicit intense anxiety or concern, concern for the individual perceived to be in distress, or even sympathy or empathy.

Why pick out "perceived threat" from a range of possible descriptions and claim that all increases in skin conductance were a result of it? Because interpreting these responses as threat responses enables the authors to construct a link between threat responses and political attitudes. And that, in turn, allows the authors to conclude that those more "threatened" by these images were also more likely to hold conservative views.

However, since the physiological responses the authors observed could just as well have been intense concern, then perhaps what they really discovered is that conservatives are more concerned about the distress of others. I do not believe this to be true, but neither do I believe the reverse to be true.

l l l

EMPLOYING THE TERM "THREAT RESPONSE" FOR ANY POSSIBLE RANGE OF EMOTIONAL RESPONSES leads to the conclusion that conservatives simply feel a good deal more threatened. And this rather unflattering conclusion is in line with a host of other studies reflective of what might be called the "pathologizing of conservatism," linking the holding of conservative views with every conceivable negative personality trait.

Inasmuch as the authors of the present study had a choice as to how to characterize the responses they observed, one is left with the following suspicion: Had it been the holders of liberal views who showed the psychological correlates of greater "emotion, arousal and attention," we would now be reading that liberals have a higher level of concern or empathy or attentiveness than conservatives.

So what did the authors really find? If we take away the preconceptions and biases that lamentably shape the manner in which the authors describe what people with sweaty palms were feeling, the answer is, "very little of interest." Some volunteers, who happened to be conservative, felt fear; others disgust; others concern; others surprise. But this likely range of emotional response does not translate -- in any easy or stereotypical way -- into a political attitude or a political ideology.

(Evan Charney is an assistant professor of public policy studies and political science at Duke University.)