Tybur Joshua M, Inbar Yoel, Aarøe Lene, Barclay Pat, Barlow Fiona Kate, de Barra Mícheál, Becker D Vaughn, Borovoi Leah, Choi Incheol, Choi Jong An, Consedine Nathan S, Conway Alan, Conway Jane Rebecca, Conway Paul, Adoric Vera Cubela, Demirci Dilara Ekin, Fernández Ana María, Ferreira Diogo Conque Seco, Ishii Keiko, Jakšić Ivana, Ji Tingting, van Leeuwen Florian, Lewis David M G, Li Norman P, McIntyre Jason C, Mukherjee Sumitava, Park Justin H, Pawlowski Boguslaw, Petersen Michael Bang, Pizarro David, Prodromitis Gerasimos, Prokop Pavol, Rantala Markus J, Reynolds Lisa M, Sandin Bonifacio, Sevi Bariş, De Smet Delphine, Srinivasan Narayanan, Tewari Shruti, Wilson Cameron, Yong Jose C, Žeželj Iris
Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081BT, The Netherlands;
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Nov 1;113(44):12408-12413. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1607398113. Epub 2016 Oct 17.
People who are more avoidant of pathogens are more politically conservative, as are nations with greater parasite stress. In the current research, we test two prominent hypotheses that have been proposed as explanations for these relationships. The first, which is an intragroup account, holds that these relationships between pathogens and politics are based on motivations to adhere to local norms, which are sometimes shaped by cultural evolution to have pathogen-neutralizing properties. The second, which is an intergroup account, holds that these same relationships are based on motivations to avoid contact with outgroups, who might pose greater infectious disease threats than ingroup members. Results from a study surveying 11,501 participants across 30 nations are more consistent with the intragroup account than with the intergroup account. National parasite stress relates to traditionalism (an aspect of conservatism especially related to adherence to group norms) but not to social dominance orientation (SDO; an aspect of conservatism especially related to endorsements of intergroup barriers and negativity toward ethnic and racial outgroups). Further, individual differences in pathogen-avoidance motives (i.e., disgust sensitivity) relate more strongly to traditionalism than to SDO within the 30 nations.
对病原体更具回避性的人在政治上更为保守,寄生虫压力更大的国家也是如此。在当前的研究中,我们检验了两个作为对这些关系的解释而提出的突出假设。第一个假设是群体内解释,认为病原体与政治之间的这些关系基于遵守当地规范的动机,这些规范有时会因文化进化而具有中和病原体的特性。第二个假设是群体间解释,认为同样的这些关系基于避免与外群体接触的动机,外群体可能比内群体成员构成更大的传染病威胁。一项对30个国家的11501名参与者进行调查的研究结果,与群体内解释的一致性高于与群体间解释的一致性。国家寄生虫压力与传统主义(保守主义的一个方面,尤其与遵守群体规范相关)有关,但与社会支配取向(SDO;保守主义的一个方面,尤其与支持群体间障碍以及对族裔和种族外群体的负面态度相关)无关。此外,在这30个国家中,病原体回避动机(即厌恶敏感性)的个体差异与传统主义的关联比与社会支配取向的关联更强。