http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefai...ry-voters.html

If you're the kind of person who jumps at things that go bump in the night, you're more likely to support public policies that favor protecting society over preserving some individual privacy.

Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln led the study appearing in the Sept. 19 issue of Science. It was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

They tested 46 people who characterized themselves as having strong political opinions. The subjects were shown scary visual images, including a spider on a person's eyeball and a person with a bloodied face and an open wound filled with maggots. They were then monitored for emotion, arousal and attention by measuring electrical conductivity on their skin. Researchers also studied pure physiology by tracking how hard subjects blinked when they were presented with a sudden, jarring noise.

"Those with the strongest eye or skin reactions to unexpected noises or threatening pictures ... tended to endorse political positions that were interpreted as protective of social groups," said John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor of political science.

The jittery types specifically supported more defense spending, more government programs to fight terrorism, and stronger immigration control.

"People in this group are more willing to sacrifice a little of their privacy to protect the social unit," Hibbing said. "On the other hand, the subjects who reacted less strongly to the stimuli were more likely to favor policies that protect privacy and encourage gun control."

The research suggests the pro-protection group feels that the most significant threats originate primarily from other people. They favor arming themselves and the government to prevent outward threats. The pro-privacy group feels technology and inanimate objects (i.e., guns) are more dangerous than people. They favor policies that preserve their individual privacy and safety, are against the death penalty, and support gun control.

The research suggests a link between political preferences and biology. NSF Program Officer Brian Humes said: "This linkage is one that could easily transform the manner in which political scientists and social scientists see the origins of preferences."

Hibbing argues that the study could help explain why people in different political groups can have so much trouble understanding an opposing view. "Maybe liberals and conservatives have difficulty understanding the views of the other side in part because they experience threats differently," he said. "Perhaps by recognizing these differences, tolerance of diverse political opinions could be facilitated."

"I do hope that it might facilitate understanding of what we're really up against here," said Hibbing. "And that [we can understand why] people haven't just thought about things differently, but they feel things differently. "

Hibbing doesn't suggest a predisposition to anxiety is the sole factor in determining someone's political beliefs. There's always an influence of environment or life experience. "We're just talking about tendencies, it's far from determinative, but the fact that we can measure a difference at all is surprising and intriguing enough to warrant more study."

The NSF has given Hibbing and his group future funding to study people with less strong opinions about protective policies. The subjects will be tested in the same manner as they were in this study.

Neuroscience can offer a fascinating exploration of political brain differences. One wonders if political advisors pay attention to these studies, and attempt to manipulate the worries or predispositions of people prone to certain biological reactions and experiences. If so, political campaigns could incorporate an understanding of both psychology and neurology into speeches, TV ads, and public statements, perhaps in an attempt to trigger certain responses from the electorate.

Perhaps it's just takes a nervous disposition to worry about such possibilities. After all, life experiences and environment are difficult to predict and control for most people. The stories of our lives are complicated enough that we can still count mostly on our free will to guide us politically -- if not biologically.