American Political Science Review c American Political Science … · 2019-01-22 · As a system for threat management, we place the behavioral immune system within the surveillance

American Political Science Review (2017) 111 2 277ndash294

doi101017S0003055416000770 c⃝ American Political Science Association 2017

The Behavioral Immune System Shapes Political Intuitions Why andHow Individual Differences in Disgust Sensitivity UnderlieOpposition to ImmigrationLENE AAROslashE University of AarhusMICHAEL BANG PETERSEN University of AarhusKEVIN ARCENEAUX Temple University

We present test and extend a theoretical framework that connects disgust a powerful basichuman emotion to political attitudes through psychological mechanisms designed to protecthumans from disease These mechanisms work outside of conscious awareness and in modern

environments they can motivate individuals to avoid intergroup contact by opposing immigration Wereport a meta-analysis of previous tests in the psychological sciences and conduct for the first time a seriesof tests in nationally representative samples collected in the United States and Denmark that integratethe role of disgust and the behavioral immune system into established models of emotional processingand political attitude formation In doing so we offer an explanation for why peaceful integration andinteraction between ethnic majority and minorities is so hard to achieve

Conventional models of political decision-makingimplicitly assume that citizens form opinionsabout politics through conscious thought Even

if political attitudes ultimately derive from deep emo-tional attachments to group loyalties developed earlyin life (Campbell et al 1960) people nonetheless con-sciously survey the considerations that are at the ldquotopof their headsrdquo at the moment of making a decision(Zaller 1992) The past two decades of research in theneurosciences challenges this simple and intuitive as-sumption Much of human decision-making takes placeoutside of conscious awareness (Bargh and Chartrand1999) The brain nonconsciously processes informa-tion automatically imbuing it with emotional contentallowing only a fraction to reach conscious awarenessEven though people are unaware of ldquoseeingrdquo sublim-

Lene Aaroslashe is Associate Professor of Political Science Univer-sity of Aarhus Bartholins Alle 7 8000 Aarhus C Denmark(leneaaroepsaudk)

Michael Bang Petersen is Professor of Political Science Uni-versity of Aarhus Bartholins Alle 7 8000 Aarhus C Denmark(michaelpsaudk)

Kevin Arceneaux is Professor of Political Science Temple Univer-sity 453 Gladfelter Hall 1115 Polett Walk Philadelphia PA 19122(kevinarceneauxtempleedu)

Acknowledgements The research reported in this article wasmade possible by funding from the Danish Council for Indepen-dent Research the Velux Foundation and the Temple UniversityBehavioral Foundations Lab The authors would like to acknowl-edge the helpful guidance and advice received from Ted BraderRyan Enos Stanley Feldman John Hibbing Leonie Huddy CindyKam Robert Kurzban Richard Lau Mark Schaller Jim SidaniusKevin Smith Joshua Tybur Nicholas Valentino participants at theInteracting Minds Seminars at Aarhus University participants in theAmerican Politics Colloquium at Temple University participants atthe Human Evolution Lunch Lecture at the Centre for BioculturalHistory at Aarhus University participants at Evolutionary Psychol-ogy Laboratory at Harvard University participants at the WorkingGroup in Political Psychology and Behavior at Harvard Universitythe anonymous reviewers as well as APSR co-editors Valerie JMartinez-Ebers and Ingo Rohlfing We are grateful to Dan NguyenKlaus Juul and Julie Joenson for their research assistance

Received June 12 2015 revised December 7 2016 acceptedDecember 12 2016

inally presented images for instance the emotionalstates that they cause influence unrelated decisions(Brooks et al 2012)

These insights have just begun making inroads intopolitical science Extraneous stimuli such as music em-bedded in advertising or images presented outside ofconscious awareness can induce emotional reactionsthat influence political attitudes and evaluations (egAlbertson and Gadarian 2015 Banks and Valentino2012 Brader 2006 Lodge and Taber 2013) Fromthe perspective of conventional models of politicaldecision-making these findings seem like parlor gametricks that fail to capture how people actually form po-litical attitudes Perhaps in a laboratory the argumentcould go people act in strange ways but automatic pro-cesses should have less influence in real world settingswhere people have the time and space to engage inconscious reflection

However once we consider that the automatic pro-cesses in the human mind evolved well before con-scious cognition it makes sense that the brain shouldbe quite capable of making complex and importantlife-and-death decisions without needing input fromthe conscious mind Indeed from this perspective theautomatic processesrsquo speed and ability to continuallyscan the environment are crucial (eg Gray 1987)Over the course of human evolution the mind wasendowed with many specialized mechanisms designedto deal with recurring threats faced by our ancestors(Barkow Cosmides and Tooby 1992 Cesario et al2010 Petersen 2015) Because different threats oftenrequire unique responses these mechanisms use differ-ent emotional statesmdashanxiety disgust jealousy etcmdashto motivate different behaviors (Cottrell and Neuberg2005) In modern democratic societies a key functionof government is to enact policies that provide secu-rity and safety from external threats Thus there isreason to expect that the deep-seated evolved mecha-nisms that helped our ancestors defend against threatsalso influence current-day policy preferences (Petersen2015)

277D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

A A47 7 CA D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC 34D A 2 CD 16 AA A 0 7 6 1 A D A C 4 D 5 6 A -4 5C 7 -AC C D A D 4 4 45 4

Lene Aaroslashe Michael Bang Petersen and Kevin Arceneaux

In this article we demonstrate the effects of an im-portant specialized set of mechanisms designed to pro-tect humans from threats caused by pathogens the be-havioral immune system (eg Schaller 2006) The be-havioral component of the immune system works out-side conscious awareness (Tybur et al 2013) and usesfeelings of disgust to motivate avoidance of potentiallyinfected objects and people (eg Schaller and Neuberg2012) Because pathogens can be lethal but extremelyhard to detect the behavioral immune system evolvedto be hypervigilant against unfamiliar stimuli includingunfamiliar individuals In the evolved mind we arguedifferences in appearance (such as the color of onersquosskin) are intuitively misinterpreted as cues of infectiousdiseases rather than harmless differences in levels ofmelanin As the history of institutionalized racial segre-gation and current day opposition to immigration showpublic discourse readily associates contamination riskwith outgroups seeking to separate supposedly un-clean outgroups from the clean (or ldquopurerdquo) ingroup

We investigate the political implications of the be-havioral immune systemrsquos hypervigilance by studyingits effect on opposition to immigration We focus on im-migration because it is one of the most divisive issuesin Western democracies today (eg Brader Valentinoand Suhay 2008 Citrin et al 1997 Malhotra et al2013 Sniderman et al 2004) Indeed the rise of anti-immigration candidates and parties is fundamentallyreshaping the political landscapes in both the UnitedStates and Europe In particular we argue that indi-viduals with sensitive behavioral immune systems (iethose who are prone to experience disgust) uncon-sciously tag immigrants as bearers of pathogens and ex-perience strong motivations to avoid them In buildingthis theoretical claim we incorporate disgust and thebehavioral immune system into the standard politicalscience models of emotional processing These modelshave emphasized anxiety as the key emotion motivat-ing vigilance against perceived threats (eg Albert-son and Gadarian 2015 Brader Valentino and Suhay2008 Markus Neuman and MacKuen 2000) Yet anemerging line of research suggests that disgust may bedistinct from anxiety and give rise to unique behavioralresponses (Banks and Valentino 2012) At the sametime however there is no clear consensus about theexact nature of these responses Originally researchersproposed that disgust underlies motivations to adoptconservative ideologies as a way to avoid negativeoutcomes (Hibbing Smith and Alford 2014 TerrizziShook and McDaniel 2013) but recent findings suggestthat disgust shapes support for ldquoprotectiverdquo policiesbe they liberal or conservative (Kam and Estes 2016)Such disparate findings call for a more refined perspec-tive on the politics of disgust (cf Banks and Valentino2012)

To meet this call this article utilizes an evolutionaryperspective on disgust to reach four specific goals Firstusing evolutionary principles we refine and extend ex-tant theoretical models of emotional processing in po-litical science Second we critically evaluate empiricalstudies in the biological and psychological sciences thatadvance the claim that the behavioral immune system

shapes immigration attitudes (eg Faulkner et al 2004Green et al 2010 Navarrete and Fessler 2006) througha meta-analysis uncovering a number of empirical andtheoretical gaps Third we address these gaps through asuite of observational and experimental studies drawnfrom nationally representative samples in the UnitedStates and Denmark We find consistent evidence thatthe behavioral immune system shapes immigration at-titudes over and beyond standard explanations in ex-tant political science models education ideology andeconomic interests Finally we consider the broaderimplications of the notion that unconscious pathogen-avoidance motivations lead some people to adopt par-ticular political attitudes Specifically we demonstratefor the first time how individual differences in thepropensity to feel disgust frustrate standard social sci-ence approaches to facilitating acceptance of ethnicdifferences We conclude by discussing how the behav-ioral immune system may generate ideological beliefsystems that cut across the constraints generated bydominant elite discourse

THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM ANDDISGUST

Disease constitutes a fundamental threat to humanfitness and the immune system is our most complexphysiological system dedicated to the challenge of de-fending against pathogens What may perhaps be lessappreciated is that over the course of evolution hu-mans also developed a behavioral immune system atthe psychological level that continuously scans for po-tential pathogen threats (eg infected food objects orpeople) outside of cognitive awareness and upon de-tection motivates individuals to take precautions thathelp avoid coming into contact with pathogens in thefirst place (Oaten Stevenson and Case 2009 Schallerand Duncan 2007 Schaller and Neuberg 2012 Tyburet al 2013)

The behavioral immune system operates through acluster of psychological mechanisms that activate bothaffective and cognitive responses designed to counterperceived pathogen threats Pathogens are invisibleto the naked eye and at the dawn of humankindcompletely outside of human knowledge (Tybur andLieberman 2016) To avoid pathogens however ourancestors did not need to know of their existence just tobehave as if they did This is the evolved function of theautomatically operating behavioral immune systemSpecifically the behavioral immune system is designedto defend against pathogens by treating specific cuesldquoas information regarding the statistical likelihood thatpathogens are presentrdquo (Tybur and Lieberman 2016 7)These cues reflect the ldquosuperficial sensory signalsrdquo thatover the course of evolution correlated with pathogenpresence such as wounds or bodily fluids (Schallerand Duncan 2007 296) Importantly the system isnot perfectly calibrated to detect the presence of ac-tual pathogens Instead ldquogiven the asymmetry in costsof false alarm versus missesrdquo (Tybur and Lieberman

278D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

The Behavioral Immune System Shapes Political Intuitions

2016 7) it is hypervigilant and errs on the side oftreating any cue of disease as a potential threat

Once the behavioral immune system identifies apotential pathogen threat it activates its consciouslyaccessible output feelings of disgust that motivate in-dividuals to retreat from potentially infected objects(Tybur Lieberman and Griskevicius 2009) As a basichuman emotion (along with eg anger anxiety andsadness) disgust exists across cultures (Tomkins andMcCarter 1964) and exhibits common physiologicalfeatures such as universally recognized facial expres-sions and nausea (Rozin Haidt and McCauley 2000)

Given the crucial role that disgust plays within thebehavioral immune system we find it useful to placeit in the context of the affective intelligence the-ory (Markus Neuman and MacKuen 2000) which isthe standard model for how emotions shape politicalattitudes and behavior Drawing on Grayrsquos (1987)work the affective intelligence model contends thatspecific emotions arise from two neural systems thatoperate continuously and automatically to sort infor-mation we encounter identify dangers and threats andprovide feedback about how to attain our goals (egsurvival) The disposition system evaluates whether ourgoals are being met When they are we experience en-thusiasm providing positive feedback and when theyare not we experience sadness as a form of nega-tive feedback The surveillance system scans the en-vironment for threats and draws our attention when aperceived threat is present The affective intelligencemodel concentrates on the role that anxiety plays infocusing our attention toward dealing with the threatand perhaps as a result the lionrsquos share of work onhow perceived threats (eg from economic instabilityor terrorism) affect political attitudes and behavior fo-cuses on anxiety (eg Albertson and Gadarian 2015Arceneaux 2012 Brader 2006 Brader Valentino andSuhay 2008)

Yet different types of threats require different be-havioral responses (Kenrick et al 2010) Pathogenthreats are distinct from other evolutionarily recur-rent threats such as violence or predators in thatone cannot see pathogens nor confront them effec-tively through brute force If one accidentally consumestainted food for instance the best strategy is to expelthe contents of onersquos stomach quickly Disgust achievesthis particular behavioral response through nausea andvomiting It also motivates people to avoid sources ofpotential contamination and engage in precautionarybehaviors such as washing

As a system for threat management we place thebehavioral immune system within the surveillance sys-tem of the affective intelligence model1 Its purpose isto scan for pathogen threats and trigger disgust when

1 Marcus Neuman and MacKuen (2000 164) place disgust in thedispositional system because it causes individuals to form lastingnegative associations Although we certainly agree that disgust servesthis function it is important to separate feelings of disgust causedby the behavioral immune system in response to an immediate per-ceived pathogen threat from its downstream effects In this way emo-tions can serve multiple functions As a component of the behavioralimmune system disgust is an adaptive response to pathogen threat

detecting cues that the behavioral immune system as-sociates with the presence of pathogens Although thebehavioral immune system focuses on the specific mo-tivational output and effects of disgust we are not as-serting that anxiety plays no role Just as anxiety andanger work in tandem to confront controllable threats(Valentino et al 2011) it is quite possible that anxi-ety helps activate the behavioral immune system Theimportant point is that disgust plays an independentrole in motivating people to retreat and take protectivebehaviors in the face of pathogen threats and this hasdistinct implications for peoplersquos political attitudes

BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SENSITIVITY ANDPOLITICAL ATTITUDES

The behavioral immune system can influence politi-cal attitudes by predisposing people to prefer specificpolicies particularly ones that reduce the likelihood ofcoming into contact with pathogens (real or imagined)Given the automatic operations of the behavioral im-mune system (Tybur et al 2013) individuals may not beconscious that their attitudes are shaped by psycholog-ical mechanisms designed to protect from pathogens

Although all humans possess a behavioral immunesystem the sensitivity of this system varies across in-dividuals (eg Schaller and Duncan 2007 299) Somepeople are more easily disgusted worry more aboutcontamination and avoid sources of pathogens moreactively than others Just as it would have been dis-astrous for our ancestors to indiscriminately approachall objects and people in the environment it wouldhave been equally disastrous to forgo establishing newpotentially beneficial relationships by avoiding all con-tact Therefore individuals must trade off the cost andprobability of becoming infected with the cost andprobability of foregoing cooperation and exchanges(Aaroslashe Osmundsen and Petersen 2016 Tybur andLieberman 2016) These costs and probabilities varyacross individuals and contexts (see Al-Shawaf andLewis 2013 Fessler Eng and Navarrete 2005 Fesslerand Navarrete 2003) Accordingly the behavioral im-mune system is ldquofunctionally flexiblerdquo calibrating itsresponse to the threat posed by the environment (Cur-tis de Barra and Aunger 2011) and the individualrsquosability to cope with it (Schaller and Duncan 2007)

For our purposes variation in disgust sensitivity pro-vides a window into how the behavioral immune sys-tem shapes political attitudes People who become dis-gusted easily should be more apt to support policiesthat reduce (or seem to reduce) their probability ofcoming into contact with pathogens We demonstratethe political implications of the behavioral immunesystem by investigating its effects on opposition toimmigration which has emerged as a consequentialand polarizing fault line in Western democracies over

It causes people to take protective measures Once the pathogenthreat is no longer present negative associations caused by disgustreactions may remain to keep the person away from the source ofcontamination

279D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

the past decades Extant research in political sciencepoints to two broad factors that contribute to opposi-tion to immigration (1) the desire to preserve sociallyaccepted cultural norms and values particularly amongindividuals with less education and a less cosmopolitanworldview (eg Coenders and Scheepers 2003 Hain-mueller and Hiscox 2007 Sniderman Hagendoornand Prior 2004 Wright Citrin and Wand 2012) and(2) concerns over economic competition and job in-security with low-income low-skilled individuals beingmore opposed (eg Brader Valentino and Suhay 2008Hainmueller and Hiscox 2010 Key 1949)

An emerging line of research largely in thepsychological and biological sciences contends thatopposition to immigration also arises from deeper psy-chological predispositions shaped by the behavioralimmune system This research proposes that immi-grants can trigger the behavioral immune system anddisgust reactions which motivate anti-immigration sen-timents (eg Faulkner et al 2004 Hodson et al 2013Huang et al 2011 Navarrete and Fessler 2006) Thereare two possibilities for why the behavioral immunesystem perceives different others as potential pathogenthreats The first is that humans developed an adaptivepredisposition against unfamiliar outgroups becauseindividuals from other groups and regions potentiallycarried different pathogens during our evolutionaryhistory (eg Faulkner et al 2004 Fincher and Thorn-hill 2012) The second possibility is that the proclivityto perceive different others as pathogen threats is abyproduct rather than adaptive predisposition of atendency to be hypervigilant against anything and ev-eryone that appears unfamiliar (Aaroslashe Osmundsenand Petersen 2016) For instance individuals tend totreat many physical deviations from the statisticallynormal phenotype within their ingroup as a sign of po-tential pathogen risk especially deviations that are sim-ilar to actual disease symptoms such as rashes swellingand discoloration2 Hypervigilance may even extendbeyond signs of physical abnormality to unfamiliar be-havioral practices that may connote pathogen risk (egpoor hygiene or unfamiliar food habits) (Fessler andNavarrete 2003)

The superficial differences to which the behavioralimmune system is attunedmdashwhether as an adapta-tion or as a byproductmdashare the hallmark of modern-day ethnic differences and routinely animate concernsabout immigration Consequently physical as well ascultural differences may be mentally tagged by the be-havioral immune system as signs of pathogen risk elic-iting disgust and causing people to avoid contact withethnically different individuals and prefer restrictiveimmigration policies As we explain above we shouldnot observe this outcome for everyone Rather indi-viduals with higher behavioral immune sensitivity aremore likely to react negatively to perceived sources ofpathogens including immigrants (eg Faulkner et al2004)

2 Birthmarks (Ryan et al 2012) obesity (Park Schaller and Crandall2007) and physical disability (Park Faulkner and Schaller 2003) forexample trigger disgust

Given the novelty of this theoretical frameworkto political science we undertook a systematic meta-analysis of the 16 articles published between 2004and 2014 that investigate the link between measuresof behavioral immune sensitivity and opposition toimmigration A complete description can be foundin Online Appendix A1ndash2 From the 16 articles wecoded 66 empirical tests of the relationship betweenbehavioral immune system sensitivity and immigrationattitudes3

The majority of the tests (66) corroborate the basicprediction that disgust sensitivity is associated with op-position to immigration Although our meta-analyticalreview offers sufficient evidence to take the notion se-riously that behavioral immune sensitivity correlateswith opposition to immigration it also reveals a num-ber of gaps in this body of scholarship All of the studiesdraw on convenience samples (mostly students) in asingle country (mostly Canada) They tend to be under-powered and report bivariate correlations between be-havioral immune sensitivity and immigration attitudesOf the observational tests that do include controls al-most all of them fail to account for some of the mostcentral factors identified in political science researchas correlates of immigration attitudes education andincome (eg Citrin et al 1997 Coenders and Scheepers2003 Espenshade and Calhoun 1993 Hainmueller andHiscox 2007 McLaren 2001) Only two studies use anexperimental manipulation of disgust to establish thegeneral causal effect of behavioral immune sensitivityon immigration attitudes At the same time however itshould be noted that some experimental studies havemoved beyond a main effect of behavioral immunesensitivity and investigated potential conditional ef-fects (see Online Appendix A21) A central focus inthese studies is whether cues related to disease threatmoderate the effect of behavioral immune sensitivityon opposition to immigration (eg Huang et al 2011Reid et al 2012 see Online Appendix A21 for a re-view) However the existing studies testing this centralclaim (Huang et al 2011 Reid et al 2012) draw on smallsamples (n = 58ndash146) increasing the risk of both falsenegatives and false positives In sum the meta-analysisindicates that the extant literature is characterized bylimitations related to external and internal validity andis limited in its integration and comparison with keypolitical science explanations

INTEGRATING POLITICAL SCIENCE ANDRESEARCH ON THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNESYSTEM OVERVIEW OF AIMS ANDSAMPLES

The findings from the meta-analytical review callfor more systematic assessment of the relationshipbetween behavioral immune system sensitivity and

3 See Online Appendix A1 for supplemental details about the re-search design and codings for the meta-analysis See Online Ap-pendix A2 for details on the analyses and results from the meta-analysis as well as analyses of robustness

280D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

immigration attitudes We believe it is of vital impor-tance to do so for two reasons

First this potential relationship offers a crucial testcase for whether deep-seated behavioral predisposi-tions largely working outside of conscious awarenessand rooted in a computational architecture shapedby evolution can influence public opinion on specificpressing political issues If so it implies that political sci-entists cannot simply reduce individual disagreementsover public policy to economic and sociological ex-planations underscoring the breadth of insight gainedfrom including biology in our theoretical models ofpolitical behavior (eg Fowler and Schreiber 2008 Mc-Dermott 2009 Petersen 2012 Smith et al 2011)

Second to the extent that opposition to immigrantsis even partially motivated by pathogen avoidance ithas far-reaching novel and testable implications forunderstanding how obstacles to achieving ethnic so-cial integration may be more deep-seated and moredifficult to eradicate than extant research implies Wedirectly theorize and test how the effects of the be-havioral immune system on anti-immigration attitudescompare to and interact with the factors that politicalscientists consider fundamental to the politics of immi-gration and ethnic tolerance We demonstrate how thebehavioral immune system frustrates the effects of thetwo dominant pathways to peaceful ethnic co-existenceaccording to classical political science research (1) mo-tivations to fit in and contribute to society and (2) in-tergroup contact (eg Allport 1954 Brader Valentinoand Suhay 2008 Pettigrew et al 2011 Pettigrew andTropp 2006 Sniderman and Hagendoorn 2007)

Achieving these goals however requires rigorousempirical tests of the link between behavioral immunesensitivity and immigration attitudes that account foralternative explanations To this end we employ across-national research design comprising a numberof cross-sectional surveys as well as survey and labo-ratory experiments collected in the United States andDenmark The United States and Denmark are bothWestern democracies yet in this context they providea comparison akin to a Most Different Systems DesignThe United States was largely populated through im-migration from all over the world whereas Denmarkis ethnically homogenous and has historically had lowlevels of immigration In addition the United Statesand Denmark face different challenges from currentwaves of immigration with generous Danish welfareprograms making immigration particularly costly (Sni-derman et al 2014) Our research design thus allows usto test whether our theoretical argument applies acrossthese historical and current contingencies

All together we rely on four samples summa-rized in Table 1 (see Online Appendix A3 for sam-ple characteristics and sampling procedures) Cru-cially these studies allow us to (1) increase inter-nal validity by utilizing both experimental designsand observational designs with extensive statisticalcontrol for potential confounding variables relatedto sociodemographics personality and political ide-ology (Samples 1ndash2 and 4) (2) increase measure-ment validity by the demonstration of convergent

effects from an array of self-reported measures of be-havioral immune sensitivity drawn from previous stud-ies (see Online Appendix A41) and an unobtrusivephysiological measure of disgust sensitivity (Sample3) and (3) increase external validity through nation-ally representative samples of Americans and Danes(Samples 1ndash2)

TEST 1 ARE INDIVIDUALS HIGH INBEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SENSITIVITY MOREOPPOSED TO IMMIGRATION

The purpose of the first test is to investigate the effect ofbehavioral immune sensitivity on anti-immigration at-titudes using representative cross-national survey dataas well as physiological measures It provides a basictest of whether general individual differences in at-tention and reactivity to pathogenic material translateinto attitudinal differences on the issue of immigra-tion Furthermore it allows us to compare the effectsof behavioral immune sensitivity with traditional mea-sures related to opposition to immigrationmdashin partic-ular income (eg Espenshade and Hempstead 1996)and education (eg Citrin et al 1997 Espenshade andHempstead 1996)

Materials and Methods

In all four studies opposition to immigration was mea-sured using a scale including six items such as ldquoImmi-grants improve American [Danish] society by bring-ing in new ideas and culturesrdquo (see Online AppendixA42) Answers were measured on seven-point scalesranging from ldquoStrongly disagreerdquo to ldquoStrongly agreerdquo(αUS Sample 1 = 084 αDK Sample 2 = 084 αDK Sample 3 =076 αUS Sample 4 = 084) The scale was recoded torange from 0 to 1 with higher values indicating higheropposition to immigration

To measure individual differences in behavioral im-mune sensitivity our research strategy was to includeseveral measures including three of the most estab-lished scales in the literature as well as self-reportedand physiological measures This increases measure-ment validity and allows us to assess replicabilityand robustness of the findings (see Online AppendixA411) In the US and Danish nationally represen-tative surveys (Samples 1ndash2) we utilize the originalfive-item contamination disgust subscale from the DS-R (Haidt McCauley and Rozin 1994 modified byOlatunji et al 2007) The contamination disgust sub-scale taps ldquodisgust reactions based on the perceivedthreat of transmission of contagionrdquo (Olatunji et al2007 285) and is based on items from ldquothe most widelyused instrument for assessing disgust propensityrdquo (vanOverveld et al 2011 325) Answers to all five items(eg ldquoI never let any part of my body touch the toi-let seat in public restroomsrdquo) were measured on fivepoint scales (αUS Sample 1 = 067 αDK Sample 2 = 061αUS Sample 4 = 067 see Online Appendix A412 for itemwordings) The five-item contamination disgust scale

281D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

TABLE 1 The Four Samples

No Country Type Sampling Protocol Sample Size

1 United States Web survey Nationally representative sample (approx)Quota-sampled by YouGov to match population ongender age education and region

2 Denmark Web survey Nationally representative sample (approx)Quota-sampled by YouGov to match population ongender age education and region

3 Denmark Laboratory study University students from a major Danish researchuniversity

4 United States Web survey Socially diverse non-representative sample of WhiteAmericans recruited through Amazonrsquos MechanicalTurk (MTurk)

was recoded to range from 0 to 1 with higher valuesindicating higher sensitivity4

In Sample 3 we replicate the results from Samples 1ndash2 with a physiological measure of sensitivity to disgust-ing stimuli As pathogen avoidance motivations canoperate outside consciousness awareness they can bedifficult to fully capture in self-reports (Smith et al2011) Hence an advantage of a physiological measureis that it can gauge ldquononconscious and nonreportablerdquoresponses (Balzer and Jacobs 2011 1302 CacioppoTassimary and Bernston 2007 2) In the Danish lab-oratory study individual differences in behavioral im-mune sensitivity were measured using the participantsrsquoskin conductance response (SCR) while viewing siximages related to infection risk and disease on a com-puter screen The participantsrsquo SCR provide a behav-ioral measure of individual differences in physiologicalarousal in response to the stimuli (Oxley et al 2008Smith et al 2011 see Online Appendix A413 for de-tails) Skin conductance responses to the six imageswere summed into a single scale ranging from 0 to1 with higher values indicating strong physiologicalresponse to the images of infection risk and disease

In Sample 4 we probe the robustness of the resultsfrom Samples 1ndash2 by also including the more recent andwell-validated seven-item pathogen disgust scale fromthe Three Domain Model of Disgust (Tybur Lieber-man and Griskevicius 2009) and eight-item germ aver-sion factor from the Perceived Vulnerability to Diseasescale (Duncan Schaller and Park 2009) The pathogendisgust scale measures individual differences in sensi-tivity to disgust within the pathogen domain that ldquofunc-tions to motivate avoidance of infectious microorgan-ismsrdquo (Tybur Lieberman and Griskevicius 2009 117)Germ aversion measures ldquoaversive affective responsesto situations that connote a relatively high likelihoodof pathogen transmissionrdquo (Duncan Schaller and Park2009 542) Hence contamination disgust pathogendisgust and germ aversion all measure individual dif-ferences in behavioral immune sensitivity Accordingly

4 Online Appendix A414 describes the demographic correlates ofcontamination disgust and all other measures of behavioral immunesensitivity in Samples 1ndash4

past studies show strong correlations between contam-ination disgust and pathogen disgust (r = 066 TyburLieberman and Griskevicius 2009 116) and the germaversion factor (r = 058 Duncan Schaller and Park2009 544) (see Online Appendix A411ndashA412 forall measurement details) Both the pathogen disgustscale and the germ aversion factor possess strong in-ternal consistency (Duncan Schaller and Park 2009542 Tybur Lieberman and Griskevicius 2009 116)and generate reliable scales in Sample 4 (αPathogen =083 αGerm = 076) Finally in Sample 4 we also in-cluded the contamination disgust scale measured asin Samples 1ndash2 (αContamination = 067) All three scalesrange from 0 to 1 with higher values indicating higherbehavioral immune sensitivity The wording of all itemsin the three self-reported measures of behavioral im-mune sensitivity supplementary measurement detailsfor the physiological measure descriptive statistics anddescription of the survey flow are reported in OnlineAppendix A41 and A43

We control for gender age education income ide-ology and race (US Sample 1) in the representativeDanish and US Samples 1ndash2 for gender age andideology in the Danish laboratory sample of students(Sample 3) and for gender age education incomeideology and personality as indexed by the Big Five(Mondak et al 2010 29) in the US MTurk Sample 4(but not race because all respondents are White) SeeOnline Appendix A42 for measurement details for allcontrol variables

RESULTS

Are individuals with high behavioral immune sensitiv-ity more opposed to immigration Table 2 reports theeffects of behavioral immune sensitivity on oppositionto immigration in all four samples As our expectationsare directional all tests of statistical significance areone-tailed

The findings in Table 2 Models 1ndash2 show that acrossrepresentative samples drawn from highly different na-tional contexts contamination disgust correlates withopposition to immigration (bUS Sample 1 = 010 p lt0001 bDK Sample 2 = 018 p lt 0001) This relationship

282D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

BehavioralIm

SystemShapes

PoliticalIntuitions

TABLE 2 The Effects of Behavioral Immune Sensitivity on Opposition to Immigration in the United States and Denmark

US Nat Rep DK Nat Rep DK Lab US MTurk US MTurk US MTurkSample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 4 Sample 4

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6)

Constant 034lowastlowastlowast (003) 027lowastlowastlowast (002) 016 (030) 045lowastlowastlowast (004) 039lowastlowastlowast (004) 042lowastlowastlowast (004)Contamination disgust 010lowastlowastlowast (003) 018lowastlowastlowast (003) - 013lowastlowastlowast (003) - -Disgust SCR - - 024lowast (010) - - -Pathogen disgust - - - - 018lowastlowastlowast (003) -Germ aversion - - - - - 016lowastlowastlowast (003)Female 002lowast (001) minus 002lowast (001) minus 004 (004) minus 000 (001) minus 001 (001) minus 000 (001)Age 000lowastlowast (000) 000lowastlowastlowast (000) minus 000 (001) 000 (000) 000 (000) 000 (000)Education minus 013lowastlowastlowast (002) minus 015lowastlowastlowast (002) - minus 011lowastlowastlowast (003) minus 010lowastlowastlowast (003) minus 011lowastlowastlowast (003)Ideology 029lowastlowastlowast (002) 034lowastlowastlowast (002) 039lowastlowastlowast (007) 030lowastlowastlowast (002) 030lowastlowastlowast (002) 030lowastlowastlowast (002)Income minus 009lowastlowast (003) minus 001 (002) - minus 002 (002) minus 002 (002) minus 002 (002)Non-white minus 005lowastlowastlowast (002) - - - - -Emotional stability - - - minus 004 (003) minus 003 (003) minus 003 (003)Openness - - - minus 013lowastlowastlowast (004) minus 014lowastlowastlowast (003) minus 014lowastlowastlowast (003)Conscientiousness - - - 009lowastlowastlowast (003) 010lowastlowastlowast (003) 010lowastlowastlowast (003)Extroversion - - - 004lowast (002) 004lowast (002) 004lowast (002)Agreeableness - - - minus 004 (004) minus 005 (004) minus 004 (004)Adjusted R2 0291 0224 0474 0263 0273 0265n 1034 1709 42 1046 1046 1046

Note Entries are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients Standard errors in parentheses All variables range between 0 and 1 except for age which is measured in years lowastp lt 005lowastlowastp lt 001 lowastlowastlowastp lt 0001 one-sided tests

exists over and beyond the effects of standard demo-graphic correlates of prejudice and anti-immigrationattitudes income and education The findings in Mod-els 1ndash2 indicate that the effect of contamination dis-gust on opposition to immigration is comparable to theeffect of education a central predictor of oppositionto immigration in prior political science research (egCitrin et al 1997 Coenders and Scheepers 2003 Es-penshade and Calhoun 1993 Hainmueller and Hiscox2007 McLaren 2001) Also the effects of contamina-tion disgust are generally larger and more robust thanthe effects of income Finally it is noteworthy that theeffects of contamination disgust remain even when wecontrol for political ideology Previous research has es-tablished a link between ideology and prejudice (seeJost et al 2003) and ideology and disgust sensitivity(Inbar et al 2009 Smith et al 2011) The findings inTable 2 show that disgust sensitivity is not simply aproxy for political ideology

The results reported in Models 3ndash6 replicate the find-ings from the nationally representative surveys acrossSamples 3ndash4 ie the Danish lab sample and the USMTurk sample Employing a physiological measure ofbehavioral immune sensitivity Model 3 demonstratesthat unobtrusive biological responses to disgusting im-ages correlate with opposition to immigration (bModel 3= 024 p = 0011)5 (See Online Appendix A53 forrobustness checks) The effect of the physiological mea-sure alleviates concerns with regards to potential lowmeasurement validity of self-reported measures and inline with the proposed role of immune response pro-vides crucial evidence that disgust-related oppositionto immigration indeed emerges from visceral physio-logical processes rather than cold cognition (see alsoSmith et al 2011)

Finally using three different measures Models 4ndash6 show that the relationship between behavioral im-mune sensitivity and anti-immigration attitudes is ro-bust across different operationalizations and in the faceof indicators of demographics income education andpersonality traits (bcontamination disgust = 013 p lt 0001bpathogen disgust = 018 p lt 0001 bgerm aversion = 016 plt 0001) It appears therefore that we are not simplyobserving a spurious relationship that is accounted forby domain-general predispositions like ideology andpersonality (see Online Appendix A51ndash3 for robust-ness checks)

We also explored interactions between ideologyand behavioral immune sensitivity in affecting anti-immigrant attitudes In Samples 1ndash2 and 4 we findsignificant or marginally significant interaction effects

5 In Sample 3 we also measured self-reported contamination disgust(measured as in Samples 1ndash2) Importantly in Sample 3 the effectof the self-reported disgust measure must be interpreted with muchcaution because of very low scale reliability (α = 029) and very lowintercorrelations of the scale items Consistent with past research(Smith et al 2011 5) the correlation between the physiologicaland the self-reported disgust measure is statistically insignificant (r= minus016 p = 0315 two-sided n = 42) This could suggest thatself-reported and physiological disgust operate independently (seeSmith et al 2011) but could also reflect the low reliability of theself-reported instrument in Sample 3 (see Online Appendix A53)

so that the effect of behavioral immune sensitivity onopposition to immigration is intensified among moreliberal respondents (see Online Appendix A54 for re-gression tables and discussion)6 Consistent with theirideology conservatives may oppose immigration formany reasons beyond pathogen avoidance Among lib-erals in contrast a high behavioral immune sensitivitymotivates people to support policy views that are atodds with their ideological outlook creating the ideo-logical inconsistency we observe here We return to thebroad implications of these findings in the conclusion

In sum across (1) well-powered representative andconvenience samples from the United States andDenmark (2) using physiological and self-reportedmeasures of behavioral immune sensitivity (3) anda rich set of control variables the findings supportthat concern about pathogens increase opposition toimmigration

TEST 2 DISEASE PROTECTIONDEACTIVATES THE LINK BETWEENANTI-IMMIGRATION ATTITUDES AND THEBEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM

The purpose of Test 2 is to further test the con-tention that behavioral immune sensitivity is the causalagent for the effects established in Test 1 Specifi-cally Test 2 maximizes internal validity by employing awell-powered randomized experiment to evaluate thelink between disease exposure and anti-immigrationattitudes In doing so we test a hypothesis centralto the existing literature (see the meta-analytical re-view) whether the degree of disease threat moder-ates the effect of individual differences in behavioralimmune sensitivity on anti-immigration attitudes (seealso Huang et al 2011 Reid et al 2012 and OnlineAppendix A21)

The behavioral immune system is a flexible systemdesigned to take contextual and individual circum-stances into account (Al-Shawaf and Lewis 2013) Anoverly sensitive system motivates avoidance of peopleand increases the probability of foregoing new poten-tially beneficial relationships (Aaroslashe Osmundsen andPetersen 2016) Too little sensitivity in contrast leadsto infection One factor that the behavioral immunesystem could use to manage this trade-off is the levelof exposuremdashperceived and realmdashto pathogens in thelocal environment High exposure should strengthenpathogen avoidance motivations and hence the linkbetween behavioral immune sensitivity and oppositionto immigration (Curtis de Barra and Aunger 2011391 Fessler and Navarrete 2003) Exposure to disease

6 Specifically we find the following significant or marginally signif-icant interactions between ideology and behavioral immune sensi-tivity (see full regression models in Online Appendix A54) USSample 1 bIdeology times contamination = minus033 p lt 0001 DK Sam-ple 2 bIdeology times contamination = minus017 p = 0066 US Sample 4bIdeology times contamination = minus030 p = 0001 bIdeology times pathogen = minus019p = 0039 bIdeology times germ aversion = minus019 p = 0056 one-sided Inthe small Danish laboratory Sample 3 with only 42 respondents nosignificant interaction is found (bIdeology timesDisgust SCR b = minus 007 p =0398 one-sided)

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

protection should in contrast decrease the effect ofbehavioral immune sensitivity on opposition to immi-gration

In Test 2 we consider the possibility that somethingas basic as hand washing may obviate the need forthe behavioral immune system to activate social avoid-ance motivations (see also Huang et al 2011) Acrosscultures people routinely engage in practices and be-haviors aimed at reducing pathogen threat with handwashing at the center of personal hygiene practicesfor centuries (Jumaa 2005 4) Indeed the simple actof washing onersquos hands is the most effective strategyagainst the spread of infectious pathogens (BhojaniDrsquoCosta and Gupta 2008 15)

Measures

To test this prediction we implemented the diseaseprotection experiment in Sample 4 The experimenthad two conditions In both conditions respondentsread a detailed story about a hospital orderly whocleans up vomit Respondents in the disease threat con-dition stopped here while respondents in the diseaseprotection condition read on to learn how the orderlycarefully washed his hands in the freshly cleaned washarea afterwards (see Online Appendix A6ndash7 for fullwording and manipulation checks) We code the ex-perimental treatment as a dummy variable (1 = diseaseprotection and 0 = disease threat) The treatment hasa marginally significant direct effect on opposition toimmigration (b = minus002 p = 0065 one-sided n =1037) indicating that it has relatively limited impact onanti-immigration attitudes independent of individualdifferences in behavioral immune sensitivity

We measure opposition to immigration and individ-ual differences in behavioral immune sensitivity usingthe same scales from Sample 4 as in Test 1 Importantlyto form the most encompassing and robust measure ofbehavioral immune sensitivity we combine the threemeasures into a single highly reliable index rangingfrom 0 to 1 (α = 077) In Online Appendix A81 weoffer replication analyses using the individual scales

Results

Do cues of disease protection mitigate the effect behav-ioral immune sensitivity on opposition to immigration

Table 3 shows the mitigating effect of infection pro-tection cues on the relationship between behavioralimmune sensitivity and opposition to immigration Thefindings indicate that providing disease protection cuesdecreases the influence of behavioral immune sensitiv-ity on anti-immigration attitudes (b = minus016 p = 0025)by 47 when compared to cues activating pathogenthreat7 Testifying to the distinctness of the effects and

7 Table 3 could suggest a positive effect of protection cues amongindividuals with no behavioral immune sensitivity (ie when behav-ioral immune sensitivity is 0) Yet in Sample 4 the lowest observedvalue on the combined measure of behavioral immune sensitivityis 0087 and the significant term at the value 0 is an extrapolationSupplemental analyses show no significant effect of protection cues

TABLE 3 The Mitigating Effect of InfectionProtection Cues on the Impact of BehavioralImmune Sensitivity on Opposition toImmigration

Opposition toImmigration

Constant 025lowastlowastlowast (004)Protection cues 007lowast (004)Combined behavioral immune

sensitivity034lowastlowastlowast (006)

Protection cues times behavioralimmune sensitivity

minus 016lowast (008)

Female minus 001 (001)Age 000 (000)Ideology 032lowastlowastlowast (002)Education minus 010lowastlowastlowast (002)Income minus 001 (003)Adj R2 0253n 1021

Note Entries are unstandardized coefficients from a fixed ef-fects model with state as group variable Robust standarderrors in parentheses lowastp lt 005 lowastlowastp lt 001 lowastlowastlowastp lt 0001one-sided tests

psychological motivations of the behavioral immunesystem no moderating effect of the treatment is ob-served on the effect of education and income (seeOnline Appendix A83) In addition we measured re-spondentsrsquo level of anxiety after the treatment andconsistent with past research we find that anxiety ispositively correlated with opposition to immigration(Brader Valentino and Suhay 2008) Moreover con-sistent with our theoretical argument the disease pro-tection cue does not diminish the effect of anxiety whileit continues to diminish the effects of behavioral im-mune sensitivity after controling for anxiety (see On-line Appendix A84)

In sum we observe that simply eliminating the psy-chological experience of disease threat substantiallyattenuates the effect of the behavioral immune systemon opposition to immigration These experimental re-sults effectively rule out concerns that the effects ofpathogen avoidance are spurious It plays a causal rolein the formation of immigration attitudes and becausehand washing is not logically connected with immigra-tion attitudes it ostensibly does so outside of onersquosconscious awareness

TEST 3 THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNESYSTEM AND CUES IN IMMIGRATIONDEBATES

We now investigate the broader implications of theeffects of the behavioral immune system In doing sowe push beyond previous studies by demonstratinghow the behavioral immune system can undermine

when behavioral immune sensitivity is held at the 10th percentile andthe first interquartile median (see Online Appendix A82)

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

established pathways to ethnic tolerance in politicalscience research

Previous research suggests that tolerance toward im-migrants increases when immigrants signal a motiva-tion to fit in and contribute to society (eg BraderValentino and Suhay 2008 Hainmueller and Hiscox2010 Sniderman Hagendoorn and Prior 2004) Yetwhile credible signals of benign motivations in othersdecrease their threat level in a variety of contexts (cfFiske Cuddy and Glick 2007 Weiner 1995) the moti-vations of an individual and the threat posed by him orher as a potential pathogen host are fully uncorrelatedThe pathogens are in a very real sense autonomousagents and the effects of the behavioral immune systemshould be unresponsive to cues about the goodwill oftheir perceived hosts

In the context of immigration debates the behav-ioral immune system should primarily respond to cuesabout differences in appearance and cultural lifestylesbetween immigrants and native populations and psy-chologically represent such differences as signs of in-fection risk Consequently the effects of the behav-ioral immune system on anti-immigration attitudes arefirst and foremost predicted to wax and wane withthe familiarity of the immigrant group (eg Faulkneret al 2004) As with disease protection cues (cf Test 2)the link between behavioral immune sensitivity andanti-immigration attitudes should be weakened in thecontext of debates about immigrants who appear andact familiarly In contrast prosocial cues about immi-grantsrsquo benign intentions that otherwise promote toler-ance (Sniderman Hagendoorn and Prior 2004) shouldoffer no comfort to those sensitive to pathogen threats

Research design and measures

To test this prediction we rely on the US nationallyrepresentative Sample 1 The measure of behavioralimmune sensitivity contamination disgust remains asdescribed under Test 1 To test how cues about immi-grant familiarity (as a disease protection cue) shape theeffects of behavioral immune sensitivity and immigrantintention (as cues unrelated to disease protection) weimplemented a 2 times 3 experiment

Following Sniderman Hagendoorn and Prior(2004) all respondents read a description of animmigrant In the description we experimentallyvaried the cues about the familiarity of the immigrantIn half of the conditions he was presented as MiddleEastern and in the other half as Eastern EuropeanThe comparison of a Middle Eastern to an EasternEuropean immigrant entails comparing an immigrantwho is different from the American majority in termsof physical and cultural appearance with an immigrantwho is much more similar At the same time choosingan Eastern European immigrant instead of a WesternEuropean immigrant means that other factors are heldmore constant including socioeconomic backgrounda legacy of nondemocratic regimes and lower levels ofEnglish proficiency We also manipulated the presenceof cues about the immigrantrsquos willingness to make an

effort to fit in In one set of conditions respondentswere told that the immigrant ldquo is not motivatedto learn English and is skeptical of American idealssuch as democracy and equal rightsrdquo (bad intentionscondition) In another set of conditions respondentswere told the exact opposite ldquoHe is very motivatedto learn English and is committed to American idealssuch as democracy and equal rightsrdquo (good intentionscondition) Finally in a third set of conditions no cueswere provided about his willingness to make an effortand fit in (control condition) (see Online AppendixA9 for full wordings) The dependent variable isa combined scale of three items about subjectsrsquoopposition to ldquohave immigrants like himrdquo enter thecountry (α = 087 see Online Appendix A9 fordetails) We include the same individual level controlvariables as in the previous analyses of Sample 1 in Test1 (see Online Appendix A9 for measurement details)

RESULTS

Does the effect of behavioral immune sensitivity on anti-immigration attitudes endure in the face of clear cuesabout immigrantsrsquo willingness to make an effort andfit in In Online Appendix A101 we validate that alltreatments have a significant main effect on oppositionto the entering immigrant (bgood intention cues = minus013bbad intention cues = 024 bEuropean= minus005 all p valueslt 0001 one-sided) These findings support that ourmanipulations were effective and replicate prior find-ings in the political science literature (eg SnidermanHagendoorn and Prior 2004) Moving beyond theseprior findings Table 4 Model 1 shows that the effectof contamination disgust on opposition to the enteringimmigrant is significantly reduced when the immigrantis of familiar European origin instead of Middle East-ern origin (b = minus016 p = 0030)

As illustrated in Figure 1 panel A the marginal ef-fect of contamination disgust drops from b = 022 (p lt0001) when the immigrant is of Middle Eastern originto statistically insignificant (b = 006 p = 016) whenthe immigrant is of European origin As illustratedin panel B this pattern is caused by people high inbehavioral immune sensitivity expressing significantlyless opposition to the entering European immigrantthan the Middle Eastern immigrant This findingoffers a political instantiation of the disease protectionexperiment Just as hand washing alleviates uneaseabout sources of pathogens cultural familiarity deac-tivates disgust responses to prospective immigrants

In contrast as shown in Table 4 Model 2 theeffect of contamination disgust sensitivity on anti-immigration attitudes is not moderated by clear cuesabout the immigrantrsquos willingness to make an effort tofit in (bcontamination disgust times good intentions = 006 p = 0248bcontamination disgust times bad intentions = minus009 p = 0176 one-sided)8 As seen in Figure 1 panel C the marginal

8 In Online Appendix A102 we provide evidence that these effectsare unique to contamination disgust The ethnic origin of the im-migrant does not moderate how education or income influencesimmigration attitudes

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

TABLE 4 The Effect of ContaminationDisgust Sensitivity on Opposition to EnteringImmigrant

Opposition to Entering Immigrant

Model 1 Model 2

Constant 033lowastlowastlowast (004) 029lowastlowastlowast (004)Cues of Familiar

(European) Origin002 (004) -

ContaminationDisgust

022lowastlowastlowast (006) 016lowastlowast (006)

ContaminationDisgust times FamiliarOrigin

minus 016lowast (008) -

Cues of BadIntentions

- 027lowastlowastlowast (004)

Cues of GoodIntentions

- minus 015lowastlowastlowast (004)

ContaminationDisgust times BadIntentions

- minus 009 (009)

ContaminationDisgust times GoodIntentions

- 006 (009)

Female 000 (002) 001 (002)Age 000lowastlowast (000) 000lowastlowast (000)Education minus 010lowastlowast (003) minus 009lowastlowast (003)Ideology 019lowastlowastlowast (003) 021lowastlowastlowast (002)Income minus 006 (004) minus 004 (004)Non-white minus 001 (002) minus 001 (002)Adj R2 0102 0356n 1034 1034

Note Entries are unstandardized OLS regression coefficientsrobust standard errors in parentheses All variables range be-tween 0 and 1 except for age (measured in years) lowastp lt 005lowastlowastp lt 001 lowastlowastlowastp lt 0001 one-sided tests

effect of contamination disgust on anti-immigrationattitudes is 016 (p = 0008) in the control group andremain 022 (p lt 0001) when clear cues of good inten-tions are provided As revealed in panel D this patternreflects that individuals high in disgust sensitivity con-tinue to oppose the immigrant even when he signalsa motivation to adopt American values and customsOnly individuals low in disgust sensitivity lower theiropposition to the well-meaning immigrant

Finally as shown in Figure 1 panel C and Table 4the marginal effect of contamination disgust is 007 (p= 0152) when cues of bad intentions are providedImportantly this effect is not significantly differentfrom the marginal effect of 016 in the control condi-tion (bcontamination disgust times bad intentions =minus009 p = 0176)As panel D illustrates bad intention cues descriptivelyreduce the attitudinal differences between individu-als high and low in disgust sensitivity because thesecues trigger opposition among individuals with lowdisgust sensitivity while people high in disgust sensi-tivity are not markedly moved by these cues (poten-tially due to their already high opposition ie a ceilingeffect)

Consistent with past research Table 4 and panel Din Figure 1 show a clear effect of intention cues onopposition to the entering immigrant but this effectworks relatively independently of behavioral immunesensitivity In sum the findings in Table 4 and Figure 1consistently support that behavioral immune sensitiv-ity reduces peoplersquos responsiveness to those prosocialcues that according to extant research establish a keyroute to inclusive coexistence and ethnic tolerance(Fiske Cuddy and Glick 2007 Hainmueller and Hiscox2010 Sniderman Hagendoorn and Prior 2004)

TEST 4 THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNESYSTEM AND THE AVOIDANCE OFINTERGROUP CONTACT

High behavioral immune sensitivity motivates peo-ple to oppose immigration from unfamiliar ethnicgroups even if these groups are motivated to con-tribute to their new country Yet immigrants nonethe-less enter many societies According to the broadliterature on prejudice one of the most importantfactors for facilitating intergroup tolerance betweengroups in society is cross-group contact (Allport 1954Welch et al 2001 Williams 1964) As emphasized byPettigrew et al (2011 278) ldquoit is clear that cross-group contact is an essential [ ] component for last-ing remediesrdquo in the context of intergroup intoler-ance In essence intergroup contact reduces intergroupprejudice (eg Pettigrew et al 2011 Pettigrew andTropp 2006)

In light of our findings we argue that activity in thebehavioral immune system can create obstacles to theemergence of tolerance If the threat from immigrantsis mentally represented as a function of pathogensstrict avoidance is the only sure way to head off thisperceived threat (Schaller and Neuberg 2012) Con-sequently people with high behavioral immune sen-sitivity should actively avoid contact with those whoare differentmdashprecisely the kind of contact that previ-ous research identifies as tolerance enhancing Individ-uals with high behavioral immune sensitivity shouldbe more likely to dislike situations that increase theprobability of contact with immigrants and to supportpolicies that decrease the chances of contact

Research Design and Measures

To test this prediction we rely on the Danish nation-ally representative Sample 2 We presented eight itemsmeasuring approval of situations related to contactwith immigrants such as ldquoTo have an immigrant familyas neighborsrdquo and ldquoThat immigrants stopped shoppingin your local grocery store and instead only shoppedin shops owned by other immigrantsrdquo and ldquoThat im-migrants moved away from the cityrsquos other neighbor-hoods and gathered themselves in their own commu-nity (see Online Appendix A11 for question wording)In particular the last two items in the three examplesabove are critical They were devised to measure ap-proval of behavior among immigrants that would make

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

FIGURE 1 By Cues of Ethnic Origin and Intentions Marginal Effect of Disgust Sensitivity (panelsA and C) and Predicted Levels of Opposition to Entering Immigrant by Disgust Sensitivity (panels Band D)

Panel A Marginal effect of disgust sensitivity by immigrant origin

Panel B Predicted opposition to entering immigrant by disgust sensitivity and immigrant origin

Panel C Marginal effect of disgust sensitivity by intentions cues

Panel D Predicted opposition to entering immigrant by disgust sensitivity and intentions cues

Note The results in Figure 1 were calculated based on the results in Table 4 In panels B and D control variables gender age educationincome race and ideology are kept constant using the observed value approach As our hypothesis and hypothesis test are directionalwe report 90 confidence intervals

them less exposed to the national culture (a traditionalconcern of those skeptical about immigration cf Sni-derman and Hagendoorn 2007) while at the same timeminimizing the possibility of coming into contact withimmigrants in their daily lives (a predicted concern forthose with high behavioral immune sensitivity) Theitems were carefully constructed so as not to give animpression that these developments involved imposingcosts on immigrants and in fact were directly framedto suggest that these developments happen on the im-migrantsrsquo own initiative In this way these items allowus to dissociate preferences for decreasing the likeli-hood of contact from the kind of punitive preferencesoften associated with prejudice (Sniderman et al 2014)

Our measure of behavioral immune sensitivity con-tamination disgust and our standard set of controlvariables are described under Test 1 Because we areinterested in reactions to immigrants who already livein the respondentsrsquo own country we also control foropposition to allowing immigrants to enter the countryusing our general anti-immigration scale

Results

Do individuals with high behavioral immune sensitiv-ity disapprove of situations implying close contact withimmigrants and support actions that would reduce the

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

FIGURE 2 Effects of Contamination Disgust Sensitivity Ideology Income and Education onApproval of Situations Involving Increased or Decreased Contact with Immigrants

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

Contamination disgustsensitivity

Ideology Income Education

That someone in your immediate family married an immigrantTo have an immigrant family as neighborsTo have more immigrants move to your neighborhoodTo eat a meal prepared by an immigrantTo shop in a butcher shop owned by an immigrantTo swim in a public swimming pool with many immigrantsThat immigrants moved away from the citys other neighborhoods and gathered themselves in their own communityThat immigrants stopped shopping in your local grocery store and instead only shopped in shops owned by other immigrantsNote Entries are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients All variables range 0ndash1 The effects are controlled for gender ageopposition to immigration and the other variables in the figure lowast p lt 005 lowastlowastp lt 001 lowastlowastlowastp lt 0001 one-sided tests

probability of coming into contact with immigrantsTo discern between the effects of behavioral immunesensitivity and the factors emphasized in extant re-search on anti-immigration sentiments we comparethe effects of contamination disgust with the effectsof socioeconomic and political factors (income edu-cation and ideology) Figure 2 shows the effects ofthese variables on the diverse range of items relatingto the approval of situations involving close contactwith immigrants (the first six items) and approval ofsocial avoidance behavior among immigrants (the lasttwo items) Consistent with our predictions individu-als with high contamination disgust sensitivity expresssignificantly stronger disapproval of all types of closecontact with immigrants (b = minus016 to minus027 p lt001 on all indicators) and significantly stronger sup-port for behaviors whereby immigrants freely chooseto avoid contact with the majority population (b =010 to 016 p = 0015 or lower) This last finding isparticularly instructive as it suggestsmdashconsistent withthe behavioral immune perspectivemdashthat people withhigh contamination disgust sensitivity are motivated byavoidance per se rather than a desire to impose costson immigrants

The effects of contamination disgust are presenteven when controlling for the standard explanatory

factors related to prejudicemdashideology income andeducationmdashbolstering our contention that there is anindependent link between behavioral immune sensi-tivity and the preference for avoiding social contactwith immigrants Moreover once we account for dis-gust sensitivity the standard explanatory factors areuncorrelated with the approval of social avoidanceHence while previous research has shown that prej-udice impels people to avoid those who are the objectof their prejudice (see Allport 1954) our findings castdoubt on exclusively sociocultural explanations for thiseffect It should be noted that Test 4 was conductedusing the sample from Denmark a relatively homoge-nous country Future research should investigate thegeneralizability to highly diverse nonsegregated soci-eties where avoidance is not possible It is plausiblethat the increased familiarity following substantial andcontinuous personal contact leads individuals to stopcategorizing immigrants as pathogen threats (see On-line Appendix A12 for further discussion) In this wayethnic tolerance may turn out to be an ldquoacquired tasterdquo

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The brain is the most sophisticated part of the humanorganism sculpted over millennia by natural selection

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

to help our ancestors deal with a variety of evolution-arily recurrent threats As neuroscience has advancedit has become increasingly clear that consciousness isindeed just ldquothe tip of the icebergrdquo (cf Freud 1915)of human emotional processing (eg Kahneman 2011Stanovich and West 2000) Outside conscious consid-erations about self-interest values and norms a widerange of evolved mechanisms are in constant operationto help remove threats While political psychologistshave begun incorporating insights from neuroscienceinto models of decision-making and paid more atten-tion to the effects of emotions (eg Hibbing Smithand Alford 2014 Lodge and Taber 2013 McDermott2009) the canonical model of emotions within po-litical science affective intelligence theory (MarcusNeuman and MacKuen 2000) is primarily orientedtowards understanding how brain mechanisms identifythreats through anxiety Yet to survive and reproduceour brains needed to not just identify threats but to ef-fectively remove them Hence in the face of threat cuesother emotions designed to effectively deal with immi-nent threats should be coactivated with the emotion ofanxiety As argued by Brader and Marcus (2013 186)ldquothere is considerable potential for theoretical integra-tionrdquo between different approaches and especially theantecedents of emotions should be considered from amore integrated perspective (Brader and Marcus 2013185) Our findings demonstrate how our understand-ing of the foundations and implications of fundamentalemotions in politics is advanced by considering the spe-cific evolved functions that define them and the deeppsychological mechanisms they arise from (Tooby andCosmides 2008)

We focused on how the human brain contains ded-icated emotional mechanisms for dealing with one ofthe most enduring and dire threats to human fitnesslethal infections (see Jensen and Petersen 2017) andhow the behavioral strategies elicited by these mech-anisms map directly on to modern policy debates inthe domain of immigration one of the most pressingand polarizing issues in contemporary politics in bothUnited States and Western Europe (see eg Givensand Luedtke 2004 145 Green 2016) Following de-velopments within the psychological sciences we havereferred to this set of mechanisms as the behavioralimmune system (eg Schaller 2006) and demonstratedhow it operates through the emotion of disgust Indoing so we employed a consilient (cf Wilson 1999)body of knowledge from psychology anthropology andbiology to make a priori evaluations of the validityof existing claims about disgust Although psychologi-cal research documents an association between disgustand leeriness of outsiders our meta-analysis found thatthese empirical studies tend to be underpowered un-derspecified products of unrepresentative samples thatshow signs of publication biasmdashcalling into questionthe veracity of these findings (Open Science Collabo-ration 2015) Despite these issues a consilient evolu-tionary perspective provides a strong a priori rationalefor the contention that the behavioral immune systemtags unfamiliar strangers as infection risks and gen-erates opposition to immigration On these grounds

we marshaled the most complete test to date of therelationship between anti-immigration attitudes andindividual differences in behavioral immune sensitivity

Employing a cross-national research design and us-ing a wide-ranging set of studies with high degrees ofstatistical power internal validity and external valid-ity we demonstrated that self-reported and physio-logical markers of behavioral immune sensitivity arerobust predictors of anti-immigration attitudes Testi-fying to its generalizability this result replicates acrossthe United States and Denmarkmdashtwo highly differ-ent contexts with regard to immigration history wel-fare regimes and ethnic composition Furthermore wedemonstrated that the association between behavioralimmune sensitivity and anti-immigration attitudes issubstantially attenuated when people are primed tofeel clean These findings establish that the unconsciousmotivation to avoid pathogens drives the connectionbetween behavioral immune sensitivity and immigra-tion attitudes ruling out concerns that behavioral im-mune sensitivity simply proxies other political predis-positions (eg prejudice) This conclusion we believesheds light on why people who espouse racist and xeno-phobic ideologies compare members of outgroups tovectors of disease such as vermin cockroaches andplagues (see Banks and Valentino 2012) and why im-migrants are often described as being unclean filthyor dirty We have developed and tested a coherent the-oretical framework that makes it apparent why suchanalogies come to mind for certain people and whysuch analogies are powerful tools for persuasion

Importantly the recognition of disgust as an evolvedtool for avoiding infections furthermore allowed usto move beyond the simple claim that individual dif-ferences in behavioral immune sensitivity shape anti-immigration sentiments In the face of novel theoreticalarguments political scientists rightly ask ldquoSo what what will work of this sort really add to our un-derstanding of politicsrdquo (Bartels 2013) In responsewe note that the evolved features of the behavioralimmune system fundamentally change the politics ofethnic inclusivity and frustrate the integrationist routeto tolerance as multiculturalism increases in the West-ern world (Sniderman et al 2014 Sniderman and Ha-gendoorn 2007) Our findings show that to the extentthat anti-immigration attitudes emerge from pathogenavoidance motivations extant social science proposalsto increase acceptance of unfamiliar ethnic groups facesignificant challenges First pathogen avoidance moti-vations reduce peoplersquos sensitivity to those prosocialsignals that facilitate peaceful coexistence in other ar-eas of life (Fiske Cuddy and Glick 2007) It is thepresence of physically and culturally distinct immi-grants that poses a threat to individuals concernedabout pathogens not the intentions of the immigrantsSecond individuals motivated by pathogen avoidanceare especially motivated to avoid contact with immi-grants potentially preventing the sorts of experiencesthat may engender tolerance Taken together thesefindings demonstrate that the behavioral immune sys-tem emerges as a potentmdashand distinctmdashobstacle toinclusive attitudes and tolerance With rising rates of

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

FIGURE 3 Marginal Effect of Pathogen Disgust Sensitivity on Social and Economic Conservatismby Ideological Self-identification

LiberalsMiddle of the roadConservatives

Panel A Social Conservatism

Panel B Economic Conservatism

Note The results were calculated based on Models 3ndash5 (panel A) and 6ndash8 (panel B) in Table A18 in Online Appendix A14 Effectsare reported with 90 confidence intervals All moderating effects of ideology on the influence of pathogen disgust are statisticallysignificant at p = 0019 or lower (one-sided)

migration across the Western world and the polarizingincrease in concerns about immigration in the masselectorate this is an important finding

We have compared the effects of behavioral immunesensitivity to traditional explanatory factors within po-litical science and found its effects to rival those of stan-dard variables such as income and education Also it isof particular importance that the effects of behavioralimmune sensitivity operate over and beyond ideologyas a range of previous studies has suggested an associa-tion between endorsements of conservative ideologiesand individual differences in the propensity to experi-ence disgust (Inbar et al 2012 see Terrizzi et al 2013 fora review) Our results suggest that people high in dis-gust sensitivity are not opposed to immigration becausethey are conservative More likely these people tendto be conservative because their behavioral immunesystem propels them to oppose immigrants and relatedpolicies

In Test 1 we provided novel evidence about thisrelationship between ideology and behavioral immunesensitivity We observed that the effect of disgust sen-sitivity on anti-immigration attitudes tended to bestronger among liberals than among conservativesHence conservativesmdashby nature of their ideologymdashwill tend to oppose immigration no matter what theiropposition is in a sense overdetermined A liberalin contrast would on average tend to be sympatheticto immigration but a liberal high in disgust sensitivityhas a strong pull toward opposing it creating a setof ideologically inconsistent policy preferences As adeeper demonstration of these opinion dynamics wepresent analyses of a representative sample of Amer-

icans (Sample 5) in which we collected measures ofoverall liberal-conservative ideology as well as the twokey attitudinal dimensions in the American electorateeconomic conservatism and social conservatism (seeTreier and Hillygus 2009) In addition we collectedmeasures of individual differences in pathogen dis-gust (Tybur Lieberman and Griskevicius 2009) andthe control variables used in the previous analyses(see Online Appendix A13ndash14 for full descriptions ofthe sample measures and statistical models) Figure 3shows how individual differences in pathogen disgustsensitivity affect economic and social conservatism forpeople that self-identify as ldquoliberalsrdquo ldquomiddle of theroadrdquo and ldquoconservativesrdquo respectively

Consistent with the previous analyses we observethat support for conservative social policiesmdasheg poli-cies that keep strangers out restrict the life ways ofpeople and uphold traditional norms of conductmdashareinfluenced by disgust sensitivity but only among liber-als People who identify as conservatives have plentyof ideological reasons to support socially conservativepolicies but for liberals being high in disgust sensitiv-ity pathogen avoidance motivations prompt them tosupport such policies despite the ideological incoher-ence it generates With respect to conservative eco-nomic policies we see the exact same opinion dynam-ics but this time driven by people who self-identify asconservatives Individuals concerned about pathogensare prompted to support liberal policies in the eco-nomic domain to satisfy their need for cleanlinessmdasheg policies that create decent living standards andurban renewal Again liberals already support thesepolicies by nature of their ideological identification but

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

conservatives high in disgust sensitivity are promptedto take up an ideological inconsistent position

Having carefully dissected the automatic operationsof a distinct threat management system in the humanbrain the behavioral immune system we arrive atan important counternarrative to the traditional viewon the relationship between deep-seated individualdifferences and political orientations Most previousstudies on the relationship between deep-seated indi-vidual differences and political orientations have fo-cused on how these individual differences give rise toideological consistency (Hibbing Smith and Alford2014 Inbar et al 2012) Indeed as summed up byMalka et al (2014 1047ndash8) it is often assumed ldquothata broad-based conservative versus liberal ideology isrooted in particular dispositional neurobiological andgenetic characteristicsrdquo In contrast our findings sug-gest that these differences might just as well promptindividuals to develop ideologically inconsistent viewsIt is an increasingly recognized fact that electoratescannot be neatly lined up on a single ideological di-mension from liberal to conservative (Feldman andJohnson 2014 Treier and Hillygus 2009) In our viewthis is an inevitable consequence of the independentoperations of automatic mechanisms for dealing withdistinct threats such as the behavioral immune sys-tem While the adherence to modern elite-created andsymbolic systems of thought such as ideologies areshaped by these mechanisms (ie through their regu-lation of policy support on specific issues) there arelikely multiple other independent causes of ideolog-ical consistency including parental socialization andeducational experiences If these other causes movepeople with high disgust sensitivity to the liberal side ofthe political spectrum ideological inconsistencies andcross pressures will spontaneously occur Not becauseof ldquoempty-headednessrdquo ldquopolitical ignorancerdquo or otherstandard explanations (Converse 1964 Zaller 1992)but because of the evolved sophisticated threat man-agement systems in the human brain and the motiva-tions they generate

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

To view supplementary material for this article pleasevisit httpsdoiorg101017S0003055416000770

Replication data and command files are availableat Dataverse Network httpdxdoiorg107910DVNC56WMI

REFERENCES

Aaroslashe Lene Mathias Osmundsen and Michael B Petersen 2016ldquoDistrust as a Disease-Avoidance Strategy Individual Differencesin Disgust Sensitivity Regulate Generalized Social Trustrdquo Fron-tiers in Psychology 7 1038

Albertson Bethany and Shana Kushner Gadarian 2015 AnxiousPolitics Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World Cam-bridge UK Cambridge University Press

Al-Shawaf Laith and David M G Lewis 2013 ldquoExposed Intestinesand Contaminated Cooks Sex Stress and Satiation Predict Dis-gust Sensitivityrdquo Personality and Individual Differences 54 (6)698ndash702

Allport Gordon W 1954 The Nature of Prejudice Reading MAAddison-Wesley

Arceneaux Kevin 2012 ldquoCognitive Biases and the Strength of Po-litical Argumentsrdquo American Journal of Political Science 56 (2)271ndash85

Balzer Amanda and Carly M Jacobs 2011 ldquoGender and Physiolog-ical Effects in Connecting Disgust to Political Preferencesrdquo SocialScience Quarterly 92 (5) 1297ndash313

Banks Antoine J and Nicholas A Valentino 2012 ldquoEmotional Sub-strates of White Racial Attitudesrdquo American Journal of PoliticalScience 56 (2) 286ndash97

Bargh John A and Tanya L Chartrand 1999 ldquoThe UnbearableAutomaticity of Beingrdquo American Psychologist 54 (7) 462ndash79

Barkow J Leda Cosmides and John Tooby eds 1992 The AdaptedMind Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of CultureNew York Oxford University Press

Bartels Larry 2013 ldquoYour Genes Influence your PoliticalViews So whatrdquo Monkey Cage November 12 2013 Washing-ton Post httpswwwwashingtonpostcomnewsmonkey-cagewp20131112your-genes-influence-your-political-views-so-what

Bhojani S S DrsquoCosta and A Gupta 2008 ldquoHand Hygiene SimpleInexpensive and an Effective Toolrdquo British Journal of InfectionControl 9 (5) 15ndash7

Brader Ted 2006 Campaigning for Hearts and Minds How Emo-tional Appeals in Political Ads Work Chicago University ofChicago Press

Brader T and George E Marcus 2013 ldquoEmotions and PoliticalPsychologyrdquo In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology secondedition eds Leonie Huddy David Sears and Jack Levy NewYork Oxford University Press 165ndash204

Brader Ted Nicholas A Valentino and Elizabeth Suhay 2008ldquoWhat Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration AnxietyGroup Cues and Immigration Threatrdquo American Journal of Po-litical Science 52 (4) 959ndash78

Brooks S J V Savov E Allzen C Benedict R Fredriksson andH B Schioth 2012 ldquoExposure to Subliminal Arousing StimuliInduces Robust Activation in the Amygdala Hippocampus An-terior Cingulate Insular Cortex and Primary Visual Cortex ASystematic Meta-analysis of fMRI Studiesrdquo NeuroImage 59 (3)2962ndash73

Cacioppo John T Louis Tassinary and Gary Bernston 2007 ldquoPsy-chophysiological Science Interdisciplinary Approaches to ClassicQuestions About the Mindrdquo In Handbook of Psychophysiology3rd ed eds John T Cacioppo Louis Tassinary and Gary BernstonNew York Cambridge University Press 1ndash16

Campbell Angus Philip E Converse Warren E Miller andDonald E Stokes 1960 The American Voter New York JohnWiley and Sons Inc

Cesario Joseph Jason E Plaks Nao Hagiwara Carlos D Navarreteand E Tory Higgins 2010 ldquoThe Ecology of Automaticity HowSituational Contingencies Shape Action Semantics and Social Be-haviorrdquo Psychological Science 21 (9) 1311ndash7

Citrin Jack Donald P Green Christopher Muste and Cara Wong1997 ldquoPublic Opinion Towards Immigration Reform The Role ofEconomic Motivationsrdquo Journal of Politics 59 (3) 858ndash81

Coenders Marcel and Peer Scheepers 2003 ldquoThe Effect of Educa-tion on Nationalism and Ethnic Exclusionism An InternationalComparisonrdquo Political Psychology 24 (2) 313ndash43

Converse Philip E 1964 ldquoThe Nature of Belief Systems in MassPublicsrdquo In Ideology and its Discontents ed David Apter NewYork NY Free Press 207ndash61

Cottrell Catherine A and Steven L Neuberg 2005 ldquoDifferentEmotional Reactions to Different Groups A SociofunctionalThreat-Based Approach to Prejudicerdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 88 (5) 770ndash89

Curtis V Micheal de Barra and Robert Aunger 2011 ldquoDisgust asan Adaptive System for Disease Avoidance Behaviourrdquo Philo-sophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences366 (1563) 389ndash401

Duncan Lesley A Mark Schaller and Justin H Park 2009 ldquoPer-ceived Vulnerability to Disease Development and Validation of a15-Item Self-Report Instrumentrdquo Personality and Individual Dif-ferences 47 (6) 541ndash6

Espenshade Thomas J and Charles A Calhoun 1993 ldquoAn Analysisof Public Opinion Toward Undocumented Immigrationrdquo Popula-tion Research and Policy Review 12 (3) 189ndash224

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Espenshade Thomas J and Kathrine Hempstead 1996 ldquoContem-porary American Attitudes Toward US Immigrationrdquo Interna-tional Migration Review 30 (2) 535ndash70

Faulkner Jason Mark Schaller Justin H Park and Lesley A Dun-can 2004 ldquoEvolved Disease Avoidance Mechanisms and Contem-porary Xenophobic Attitudesrdquo Group Processes and IntergroupRelations 7 (4) 333ndash53

Feldman Stanley and Christopher Johnston 2014 ldquoUnderstandingthe Determinants of Political Ideology Implications of StructuralComplexityrdquo Political Psychology 35 (3) 337ndash58

Fessler Daniel M Serena J Eng and Carlos D Navarrete 2005Elevated Disgust Sensitivity in the First Trimester of PregnancyEvidence Supporting the Compensatory Prophylaxis HypothesisEvolution and Human Behavior 26 (4) 344ndash51

Fessler Daniel M T and Carlos D Navarrete 2003 rdquoMeat is Goodto Taboo Dietary Proscriptions as a Product of the Interactionof Psychological Mechanisms and Social Processesrdquo Journal ofCognition and Culture 3 (1) 1ndash40

Fincher Corey L and Randy Thornhill 2012 ldquoParasite-Stress Pro-motes In-Group Assortative Sociality The Cases of Strong FamilyTies and Heightened Religiosityrdquo Behavioral and Brain Sciences35 (2) 61ndash79

Fiske Susan Amy J C Cuddy and Peter Glick 2007 ldquoUniversal Di-mensions of Social Cognition Warmth and Competencerdquo Trendsin Cognitive Sciences 11 (2) 77ndash83

Fowler James H and Darren Schreiber 2008 ldquoBiology Politics andthe Emerging Science of Human Naturerdquo Science 322 (5903) 912ndash4

Freud Sigmund 1915 The Unconscious SE 14 London Hogarth159ndash204

Givens Terri and Adam Luedtke 2004 ldquoThe Politics of EuropeanUnion Immigration Policy Institutions Salience and Harmoniza-tionrdquo Policy Studies Journal 32 (1) 145ndash65

Gray Jeffrey 1987 The Psychology of Fear and Stress CambridgeUK Cambridge University Press

Green David 2016 ldquoThe Trump Hypothesis Testing ImmigrantPopulations as a Determinant of Violent and Drug-Related Crimein the United Statesrdquo Social Science Quarterly 97 (3) 506ndash24

Green Eva G T Franciska Krings Christian StaerkleAdrian Bangerter Alain Clemence Pascal Wagner-Eggerand Tierry Bornand 2010 ldquoKeeping the Vermin Out PerceivedDisease Threat and Ideological Orientations as Predictors ofExclusionary Immigration Attitudesrdquo Journal of Community andApplied Social Psychology 20 (4) 299ndash316

Haidt Jonathan Clark McCauley and Paul Rozin 1994 ldquoIndividualDifferences in Sensitivity to Disgust A Scale Sampling Seven Do-mains of Disgust Elicitorsrdquo Personality and Individual Differences16 (5) 701ndash13

Hainmueller Jens and Michael J Hiscox 2007 ldquoEducated Pref-erences Explaining Attitudes toward Immigration in EuroperdquoInternational Organization 61 (2) 399ndash442

Hainmueller Jens and Michael J Hiscox 2010 ldquoAttitudes towardHighly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration Evidence from aSurvey Experimentrdquo American Political Science Review 104 (1)61ndash84

Hibbing John R Kevin B Smith and John R Alford 2014 ldquoDiffer-ences in Negativity Bias Underlie Variations in Political IdeologyrdquoBehavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (3) 297ndash307

Hodson Gordon Becky L Choma Jacqueline BoisvertCarolyn L Hafer Cara C MacInnis and Kimberly Costello 2013ldquoThe Role of Intergroup Disgust in Predicting Negative OutgroupEvaluationsrdquo Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2)195ndash205

Huang Julie Y Alexandra Sedlovskaya Joshua M Ackerman andJohn A Bargh 2011 ldquoImmunizing Against Prejudice Effects ofDisease Protection on Attitudes Toward Out-Groupsrdquo Psycho-logical Science 22 (12) 1550ndash6

Inbar Yoel David A Pizarro and Paul Bloom 2009 ldquoConservativesare More Easily Disgusted than Liberalsrdquo Cognition and Emotion23 (4) 714ndash25

Inbar Yoel David Pizarro Ravi Iyer and Jonathan Haidt 2012ldquoDisgust Sensitivity Political Conservatism and Votingrdquo SocialPsychological and Personality Science 3 (5) 537ndash44

Jensen Carsten and Michael Bang Petersen 2017 ldquoThe Deserving-ness Heuristic and the Politics of Health Carerdquo American Journalof Political Science 61 (1) 68ndash83

Jost John T Jack Glaser Arie W Kruglanski and Frank J Sulloway2003 ldquoPolitical Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognitionrdquo Psy-chological Bulletin 129 (3) 339ndash75

Jumaa P A 2005 ldquoHand Hygiene Simple and Complexrdquo Interna-tional Journal of Infectious Diseases 9 (1) 3ndash14

Kahneman Daniel 2011 Thinking Fast and Slow New York FarrarStraus and Giroux

Kam Cindy D and Beth A Estes 2016 ldquoDisgust Sensitivity andPublic Demand for Protectionrdquo Journal of Politics 78 (2) 481ndash96

Kenrick Douglas T Vladas Griskevicius Steven L Neuberg andMark Schaller 2010 ldquoRenovating the Pyramid of Needs Contem-porary Extensions Built Upon Ancient Foundationsrdquo Perspectiveson Psychological Science 5 (3) 292ndash314

Key V O 1949 Southern Politics in State and Nation New YorkAlfred A Knopff

Lodge Milton and Charles S Taber 2013 The Rationalizing VoterNew York Cambridge University Press

Malhotra Neil Yotam Margalit and Cecilia H Mo 2013 ldquoEco-nomic Explanations for Opposition to Immigration Distinguish-ing between Prevalence and Conditional Impactrdquo American Jour-nal of Political Science 57 (2) 391ndash410

Malka Ariel Christopher J Soto Michael Inzlicht andYphtach Lelkes 2014 ldquoDo Needs for Security and CertaintyPredict Cultural and Economic Conservatism A Cross-NationalAnalysisrdquo Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology 106 (6)1031ndash51

Marcus George E W Russell Neuman and Michael MacKuen2000 Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment Chicago Uni-versity of Chicago Press

McDermott Rose 2009 ldquoMutual Interests The Case for IncreasingDialogue between Political Science and Neurosciencerdquo PoliticalResearch Quarterly 62 571ndash83

McLaren Lauren 2001 ldquoImmigration and the New Politics of Inclu-sion and Exclusion in the European Unionrdquo European Journal ofPolitical Research 39 81ndash108

Mondak Jeffery J Matthew V Hibbing Damarys CanacheMitchell A Seligson and Mary R Anderson 2010 ldquoPersonalityand Civic Engagement An Integrative Framework for the Studyof Trait Effects on Political Behaviorrdquo American Political ScienceReview 104 85ndash110

Navarrete Carlos D and Daniel M T Fessler 2006 ldquoDisease Avoid-ance and Ethnocentrism The Effects of Disease Vulnerability andDisgust Sensitivity on Intergroup Attitudesrdquo Evolution and Hu-man Behavior 27 (4) 270ndash82

Oaten Megan Richard J Stevenson and Trevor I Case 2009 ldquoDis-gust as a Disease-Avoidance Mechanismrdquo Psychological Bulletin135 (2) 303ndash21

Olatunji Bumni O Nathan L Williams David F TolinCraig N Sawchuk Jonathan S Abramowitz Jeffrey M Lohrand Lisa S Elwood 2007 ldquoThe Disgust Scale Item AnalysisFactor Structure and Suggestions for Refinementrdquo PsychologicalAssessment 19 (3) 281ndash97

Open Science Collaboration 2015 ldquoEstimating the Reproducibilityof Psychological Sciencerdquo Science 349 (6251) aac4716

Oxley Douglas R Kevin B Smith John R Alford Matthew V Hib-bing Jennifer L Miller 2008 rdquoPolitical Attitudes Vary with Phys-iological Traitsrdquo Science 321 1667ndash70

Park Justin H Jason Faulkner and Mark Schaller 2003 ldquoEvolvedDisease-Avoidance Processes and Contemporary Anti-Social Be-havior Prejudicial Attitudes and Avoidance of People with Phys-ical Disabilitiesrdquo Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27 (2) 65ndash87

Park Justin H Mark Schaller and Christian S Crandall 2007ldquoPathogen-Avoidance Mechanisms and the Stigmatization ofObese Peoplerdquo Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (6) 410ndash4

Petersen Michael B 2012 ldquoSocial Welfare as Small-Scale Help Evo-lutionary Psychology and the Deservingness Heuristicrdquo AmericanJournal of Political Science 56 (1) 1ndash16

Petersen Michael B 2015 rdquoEvolutionary Political Psychology Onthe Origin and Structure of Heuristics and Biases in PoliticsrdquoPolitical Psychology 36 (S1) 45ndash78

Pettigrew Thomas F and Linda R Tropp 2006 ldquoA Meta-analyticTest of Intergroup Contact Theoryrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 90 (5) 751ndash83

Pettigrew Thomas F Linda R Tropp Ulrich Wagner andOliver Christ 2011 ldquoRecent Advances in Intergroup Contact

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Theoryrdquo International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (3)271ndash80

Reid Scott A Jinguang Zhang Grace L AndersonJessica Gasiorek Douglas Bonilla and Susana Peinado 2012ldquoParasite Primes make Foreign-Accented English Sound MoreDistant to People who are Disgusted by Pathogens (but not bySex or Morality)rdquo Evolution and Human Behavior 33 (5) 471ndash8

Rozin Paul Jonathan Haidt and Clark R McCauley 2000 ldquoDis-gustrdquo In Handbook of Emotions 2nd edition eds Michael Lewisand Jeannette M Haviland-Jones New York Guilford Press 637ndash53

Ryan Stephen Megan Oaten Richard J Stevenson andTrevor I Case 2012 ldquoFacial Disfigurement is Treated Like anInfectious Diseaserdquo Evolution and Human Behavior 33 (6) 639ndash46

Schaller Mark 2006 ldquoParasites Behavioral Defenses and the So-cial Psychological Mechanisms Through Which Cultures AreEvokedrdquo Psychological Inquiry 17 (2) 96ndash137

Schaller Mark and Lesley A Duncan 2007 ldquoThe BehavioralImmune System Its Evolution and Social Psychological Im-plicationsrdquo In Evolution and The Social Mind EvolutionaryPsychology and Social Cognition eds Joseph P ForgasMartie G Haselton and William von Hippel London PsychologyPress 293ndash307

Schaller Mark and Steven L Neuberg 2012 ldquoDanger Disease andthe Nature Prejudice(s)rdquo Advances in Experimental Social Psy-chology 46 1ndash54

Smith Kevin B Douglas Oxley Matthew V Hibbing John R Al-ford and John R Hibbing 2011 ldquoDisgust Sensitivity and TheNeurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientationsrdquo PLOS One6 (10) e25552

Sniderman Paul Louk Hagendoorn and Markus Prior 2004 ldquoPre-dispositional Factors and Situational Triggers Exclusionary Reac-tions to Immigrant Minoritiesrdquo American Political Science Review98 (1) 35ndash50

Sniderman Paul Michael Bang Petersen Rune Slothuus andRune Stubager 2014 Paradoxes of Liberal Democracy IslamWestern Europe and the Danish Cartoon Crisis Princeton Prince-ton University Press

Sniderman Paul M and Louk Hagendoorn 2007 When Ways ofLife Collide Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Nether-lands Princeton Princeton University Press

Stanovich Keith E and Richard F West 2000 ldquoIndividual Differ-ences in Reasoning Implications for the Rationality Debaterdquo Be-havioral and Brain Sciences 23 645ndash726

Terrizzi John A Jr Natalie J Shook and Michael A McDaniel2013 ldquoThe Behavioral Immune System and Social Conser-

vatism A Meta-analysisrdquo Evolution and Human Behavior 34 (2)99ndash108

Treier Shawn and Sunshine D Hillygus 2009 ldquoThe Nature of Po-litical Ideology in the Contemporary Electoraterdquo Public OpinionQuarterly 73 (4) 679ndash703

Tomkins Silvan S and Robert McCarter 1964 ldquoWhat and Whereare the Primary Affects Some Evidence for a Theoryrdquo Perceptualand Motor Skills 18 (1) 119ndash58

Tooby John and Leda Cosmides 2008 ldquoThe Evolutionary Psychol-ogy of the Emotions and Their Relationship to Internal RegulatoryVariablesrdquo In Michael Lewis Jeannette M Haviland-Jones LisaFeldman Barrett eds Handbook of Emotions 3rd ed New YorkGuilford Press 114ndash37

Tybur Joshua M and Debra Lieberman 2016 ldquoHuman PathogenAvoidance Adaptationsrdquo Current Opinion in Psychology 7(February) 6ndash11

Tybur Joshua M Debra Lieberman and Vladas Griskevicius 2009ldquoMicrobes Mating and Morality Individual Differences in ThreeFunctional Domains of Disgustrdquo Personality Processes and Indi-vidual Differences 97 (1) 103ndash22

Tybur Joshua M Debra Lieberman Robert Kurzban and Peter De-Scioli 2013 ldquoDisgust Evolved Function and Structurerdquo Psycho-logical Review 120 (1) 65ndash84

Valentino Nicholas A Ted Brader Eric W GroenendykKrysha Gregorowicz and Vincent L Hutchings 2011 ldquoElectionNightrsquos Alright for Fighting The Role of Emotions in PoliticalParticipationrdquo Journal of Politics 73 (1) 156ndash70

van Overveld Mark Peter J de Jong Madelon L Peters andErik Schouten 2011 ldquoThe Disgust Scale-R A Valid and ReliableIndex to Investigate Separate Disgust Domainsrdquo Personality andIndividual Differences 51 (3) 325ndash30

Weiner Bernard 1995 Judgements of Responsibility A Foundationfor a Theory of Social Conduct New York Guilford Press

Welch Susan Lee Sigelman Timothy Bledsoe andMichael Combs 2001 Race and Place Race Relations inan American City Cambridge UK Cambridge UniversityPress

Williams Jr Robin Murphy 1964 Strangers Next Door Ethnic Re-lations in American Communities Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice-Hall

Wilson Edward O 1999 Consilience The Unity of Knowledge NewYork Vintage

Wright Matthew Jack Citrin and Jonathan Wand 2012 ldquoAlterna-tive Measures of American National Identity Implications for theCivic-Ethnic Distinctionrdquo Political Psychology 33 (4) 469ndash82

Zaller John 1992 The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion NewYork Cambridge University Press

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM AND DISGUST

BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SENSITIVITY AND POLITICAL ATTITUDES

INTEGRATING POLITICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH ON THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM OVERVIEW OF AIMS AND SAMPLES

TEST 1 ARE INDIVIDUALS HIGH IN BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SENSITIVITY MORE OPPOSED TO IMMIGRATION


RESULTS

TEST 2 DISEASE PROTECTION DEACTIVATES THE LINK BETWEEN ANTI-IMMIGRATION ATTITUDES AND THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM

Measures

Results

TEST 3 THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM AND CUES IN IMMIGRATION DEBATES


RESULTS

TEST 4 THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM AND THE AVOIDANCE OF INTERGROUP CONTACT


Results



REFERENCES

In this article we demonstrate the effects of an im-portant specialized set of mechanisms designed to pro-tect humans from threats caused by pathogens the be-havioral immune system (eg Schaller 2006) The be-havioral component of the immune system works out-side conscious awareness (Tybur et al 2013) and usesfeelings of disgust to motivate avoidance of potentiallyinfected objects and people (eg Schaller and Neuberg2012) Because pathogens can be lethal but extremelyhard to detect the behavioral immune system evolvedto be hypervigilant against unfamiliar stimuli includingunfamiliar individuals In the evolved mind we arguedifferences in appearance (such as the color of onersquosskin) are intuitively misinterpreted as cues of infectiousdiseases rather than harmless differences in levels ofmelanin As the history of institutionalized racial segre-gation and current day opposition to immigration showpublic discourse readily associates contamination riskwith outgroups seeking to separate supposedly un-clean outgroups from the clean (or ldquopurerdquo) ingroup

We investigate the political implications of the be-havioral immune systemrsquos hypervigilance by studyingits effect on opposition to immigration We focus on im-migration because it is one of the most divisive issuesin Western democracies today (eg Brader Valentinoand Suhay 2008 Citrin et al 1997 Malhotra et al2013 Sniderman et al 2004) Indeed the rise of anti-immigration candidates and parties is fundamentallyreshaping the political landscapes in both the UnitedStates and Europe In particular we argue that indi-viduals with sensitive behavioral immune systems (iethose who are prone to experience disgust) uncon-sciously tag immigrants as bearers of pathogens and ex-perience strong motivations to avoid them In buildingthis theoretical claim we incorporate disgust and thebehavioral immune system into the standard politicalscience models of emotional processing These modelshave emphasized anxiety as the key emotion motivat-ing vigilance against perceived threats (eg Albert-son and Gadarian 2015 Brader Valentino and Suhay2008 Markus Neuman and MacKuen 2000) Yet anemerging line of research suggests that disgust may bedistinct from anxiety and give rise to unique behavioralresponses (Banks and Valentino 2012) At the sametime however there is no clear consensus about theexact nature of these responses Originally researchersproposed that disgust underlies motivations to adoptconservative ideologies as a way to avoid negativeoutcomes (Hibbing Smith and Alford 2014 TerrizziShook and McDaniel 2013) but recent findings suggestthat disgust shapes support for ldquoprotectiverdquo policiesbe they liberal or conservative (Kam and Estes 2016)Such disparate findings call for a more refined perspec-tive on the politics of disgust (cf Banks and Valentino2012)

To meet this call this article utilizes an evolutionaryperspective on disgust to reach four specific goals Firstusing evolutionary principles we refine and extend ex-tant theoretical models of emotional processing in po-litical science Second we critically evaluate empiricalstudies in the biological and psychological sciences thatadvance the claim that the behavioral immune system

shapes immigration attitudes (eg Faulkner et al 2004Green et al 2010 Navarrete and Fessler 2006) througha meta-analysis uncovering a number of empirical andtheoretical gaps Third we address these gaps through asuite of observational and experimental studies drawnfrom nationally representative samples in the UnitedStates and Denmark We find consistent evidence thatthe behavioral immune system shapes immigration at-titudes over and beyond standard explanations in ex-tant political science models education ideology andeconomic interests Finally we consider the broaderimplications of the notion that unconscious pathogen-avoidance motivations lead some people to adopt par-ticular political attitudes Specifically we demonstratefor the first time how individual differences in thepropensity to feel disgust frustrate standard social sci-ence approaches to facilitating acceptance of ethnicdifferences We conclude by discussing how the behav-ioral immune system may generate ideological beliefsystems that cut across the constraints generated bydominant elite discourse

THE BEHAVIORAL IMMUNE SYSTEM ANDDISGUST

Disease constitutes a fundamental threat to humanfitness and the immune system is our most complexphysiological system dedicated to the challenge of de-fending against pathogens What may perhaps be lessappreciated is that over the course of evolution hu-mans also developed a behavioral immune system atthe psychological level that continuously scans for po-tential pathogen threats (eg infected food objects orpeople) outside of cognitive awareness and upon de-tection motivates individuals to take precautions thathelp avoid coming into contact with pathogens in thefirst place (Oaten Stevenson and Case 2009 Schallerand Duncan 2007 Schaller and Neuberg 2012 Tyburet al 2013)

The behavioral immune system operates through acluster of psychological mechanisms that activate bothaffective and cognitive responses designed to counterperceived pathogen threats Pathogens are invisibleto the naked eye and at the dawn of humankindcompletely outside of human knowledge (Tybur andLieberman 2016) To avoid pathogens however ourancestors did not need to know of their existence just tobehave as if they did This is the evolved function of theautomatically operating behavioral immune systemSpecifically the behavioral immune system is designedto defend against pathogens by treating specific cuesldquoas information regarding the statistical likelihood thatpathogens are presentrdquo (Tybur and Lieberman 2016 7)These cues reflect the ldquosuperficial sensory signalsrdquo thatover the course of evolution correlated with pathogenpresence such as wounds or bodily fluids (Schallerand Duncan 2007 296) Importantly the system isnot perfectly calibrated to detect the presence of ac-tual pathogens Instead ldquogiven the asymmetry in costsof false alarm versus missesrdquo (Tybur and Lieberman

278D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

279D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

280D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

281D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

282D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

BehavioralIm

SystemShapes

PoliticalIntuitions

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6)

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

279D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

280D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

281D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

282D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

BehavioralIm

SystemShapes

PoliticalIntuitions

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6)

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

280D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

281D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

282D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

BehavioralIm

SystemShapes

PoliticalIntuitions

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6)

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

281D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

282D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

BehavioralIm

SystemShapes

PoliticalIntuitions

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6)

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

RESULTS

282D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

BehavioralIm

SystemShapes

PoliticalIntuitions

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6)

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

BehavioralIm

SystemShapes

PoliticalIntuitions

(M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6)

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

284D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

Measures

Results

285D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

RESULTS

286D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

Model 1 Model 2

- minus 009 (009)

- 006 (009)

287D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

Results

288D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

-05 -06 02

-01 -01 -02 -16

-02 -00 -00

01 02 05

-02 06

-01 01

-04 -02 -02

-03-025-02-015-01-00500050101502

289D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

290D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

291D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

REFERENCES

292D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

293D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

294D 64 5C 7 AC 6AC C D D 7A AC 1


RESULTS


Measures

Results



RESULTS



Results



REFERENCES

Documents

American Political Science Review c American Political Science … · 2019-01-22 · As a system for threat management, we place the behavioral immune system within the surveillance