Investigating the conservatism-disgust paradox in reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic: A reexamination of the interrelations among political ideology, disgust sensitivity, and pandemic response.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 21 06 2021
accepted: 16 09 2022
entrez: 4 11 2022
pubmed: 5 11 2022
medline: 9 11 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Research has documented robust associations between greater disgust sensitivity and (1) concerns about disease, and (2) political conservatism. However, the COVID-19 disease pandemic raised challenging questions about these associations. In particular, why have conservatives-despite their greater disgust sensitivity-exhibited less concern about the pandemic? Here, we investigate this "conservatism-disgust paradox" and address several outstanding theoretical questions regarding the interrelations among disgust sensitivity, ideology, and pandemic response. In four studies (N = 1,764), we identify several methodological and conceptual factors-in particular, an overreliance on self-report measures-that may have inflated the apparent associations among these constructs. Using non-self-report measures, we find evidence that disgust sensitivity may be a less potent predictor of disease avoidance than is typically assumed, and that ideological differences in disgust sensitivity may be amplified by self-report measures. These findings suggest that the true pattern of interrelations among these factors may be less "paradoxical" than is typically believed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36331918
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275440
pii: PONE-D-21-20314
pmc: PMC9635700
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0275440

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Ruisch et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Br J Psychol. 2021 Feb;112(1):342-357
pubmed: 31724742
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Mar;150(3):527-544
pubmed: 32790460
Psychol Assess. 2007 Sep;19(3):281-97
pubmed: 17845120
Pers Individ Dif. 2020 Dec 1;167:110221
pubmed: 32834281
Psychol Bull. 2009 Mar;135(2):303-21
pubmed: 19254082
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2009 Feb;84(1):113-31
pubmed: 19046399
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 5;367(1589):640-9
pubmed: 22271780
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 May;96(5):1029-46
pubmed: 19379034
Psychol Sci. 2016 May;27(5):595-605
pubmed: 26976083
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3-5
pubmed: 26162106
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021 Aug;121(2):394-409
pubmed: 32881551
Br J Soc Psychol. 1995 Mar;34 ( Pt 1):67-83
pubmed: 7735733
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020 Jun;46(6):896-912
pubmed: 31619133
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Feb 23;118(8):
pubmed: 33542156
Emotion. 2012 Feb;12(1):23-7
pubmed: 21707161
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249596
pubmed: 33826646
Ann Behav Med. 2020 Oct 1;54(10):713-727
pubmed: 32914831
Br J Psychol. 2021 Feb;112(1):358-361
pubmed: 32515057
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 24;16(2):e0247520
pubmed: 33626066
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 20;15(8):e0238015
pubmed: 32817714
Pers Individ Dif. 2020 Nov 1;166:110220
pubmed: 32834279
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Dec 12;366(1583):3418-26
pubmed: 22042918
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25552
pubmed: 22039415
Nat Hum Behav. 2022 May;6(5):656-665
pubmed: 35190712
Polit Psychol. 2021 Oct;42(5):795-816
pubmed: 34226775
Curr Psychol. 2022;41(10):7362-7370
pubmed: 33654348
Psychol Methods. 2006 Dec;11(4):323-43
pubmed: 17154750
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Jun;4(6):613-621
pubmed: 32042109
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jun 7;275(1640):1279-85
pubmed: 18302996
Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 14;11(1):20460
pubmed: 34650222
Nat Hum Behav. 2022 May;6(5):666-676
pubmed: 35534708
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Nov 1;113(44):12408-12413
pubmed: 27791090

Auteurs

Benjamin C Ruisch (BC)

University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.

Shelby T Boggs (ST)

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

Courtney A Moore (CA)

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

Javier A Granados Samayoa (JA)

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

Jesse T Ladanyi (JT)

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

Steffen Steinert (S)

Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.

Russell H Fazio (RH)

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH