Most studies into the psychology of political philosophy aren’t worth comment (I just proved that conservatives are mentally ill!), but the research design here seems solid: Conservatives, and social conservatives in particular, are jumpier than liberals.
For what it’s worth, I do startle easily. But I’m not very socially conservative. Hm.
The Slate write-up has some interesting material on similar studies, including these hilarious grafs:
Last week I went to hear Jost and Amodio speak about the conservative brain at a New York University event dedicated to “The Neuroscience of Elections and Human Decision-Making.” This felt less like a science seminar than a special-interest meet-up for Obama supporters. Amodio finished his presentation with a series of speculations about how voter psychology would affect the upcoming election: The McCain campaign, he said, could win over swing voters by blurring or stretching the truth; Obama might continue to make “qualified, informed statements” that appeal only to his base.
When someone in the audience pointed out that the researchers themselves appeared to be highly partisan observers, Amodio barked, “Big deal!” He explained that scientists do tend to be liberal, but that’s on account of their predilection for the truth and tolerance for uncertainty.
He’s such a nuanced thinker he doesn’t see the circularity of his argument: When asked whether his profession’s liberal leanings might influence its conclusion that liberals are more nuanced thinkers, he responds that because it takes nuanced thinkers to make such arguments, of course they’re all liberals.