Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-ms7nj Total loading time: 0.556 Render date: 2022-08-10T18:37:58.949Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Negativity Biases and Political Ideology: A Comparative Test across 17 Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2020

Université de Montréal
University of Michigan
Hebrew University
Patrick Fournier, Professor, Université de Montréal,
Stuart Soroka, Professor, University of Michigan,
Lilach Nir, Associate Professor, Hebrew University,


There is a considerable body of work across the social sciences suggesting negativity biases in human attentiveness and decision-making. Recent research suggests that individual variation in negativity biases is correlated with political ideology: persons who have stronger physiological reactions to negative stimuli, this work argues, hold more conservative attitudes. However, such results have mostly been encountered in the United States. Does the link between psychophysiological negativity biases and political ideology apply elsewhere? We answer this question with the most extensive cross-national psychophysiological study to date. Respondents across 17 countries and six continents were exposed to negative and positive televised news reports and static images. Sensors tracked participants’ skin conductance, and a survey captured their left–right political orientation. Analyses performed at three levels of aggregation—respondent-as-a-case, stimuli-as-a-case, and second-by-second time-series—fail to find strong support for the link between negativity biases and political ideology.

Research Article
© American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Acknowledgments: Fournier and Soroka contributed equally to this work. We are grateful to conference participants and colleagues for remarks, many of which were fundamental to the study; we are in particular indebted to Bert Bakker, as well as Vin Arceneaux, André Blais, Ruth Dassonneville, Chris Dawes, Johanna Dunaway, John Hibbing, Peter John Loewen, Kevin Quinn, and Daniel Rubenson. We are grateful to the research coordinators and research assistants at our own and other institutions: Saja Abu-Fani, Maxim Alyukov, Jeremy Adrian, Thiago Barbosa, Alexandre Blanchet, Danin Chen, Yolanda Clatworthy, Lou d’Angelo, Danlin Chen, Veronica Dazzan, Fatou Diop, Thomas Donovan, Marie Fly, Nicole Gileadi, Amanda Hampton, Matthias Heilke, Emma Heffernan, John Jensenius, Gonoi Ken, Saga Khaghani, Robert Lee Vidigal, Ling Liu, Sofie Lovbjerg, Eleonora Marchetti, Radhika Mitra, Alex Nevitte, Hiroki Ogawa, Vijeta Pamnani, Shang Pan, Amma Panin, Andres Parado, Heidi Payter, Martina Perversi, Felipe Torres Raposo, Tea Rosic, Autumn Szczepanski, Alassane Sow, Dominic Valentino, Omer Yair, and Kirill Zhirkov. We have relied on colleagues to help facilitate experiments abroad, and owe special thanks to Michael Bang Petersen, Sharon Barnhardt, Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom, Fatou Binetou Dial, Ray Duch, Vladimir Gelman, Peiran Jiao, Masaru Kohno, Neils Markwat, Johan Martinsson, Gianpietro Mazzoleni, Elin Naurin, Nicholas Sauger, Sergio Splendore, Nurit Tal-Or, Yariv Tsfati, Mathieu Turgeon, and Jack Vowles. Experiments were run using purpose-built software by Bennett Smith, first designed for work with Stephen McAdams and Elisabeth Gidengil; and preliminary work depended on lab space and funding from the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, and from the Hebrew University Halbert Centre. This work is funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse:


Aarøe, Lene, and Petersen, Michael Bang. 2013. Hunger Games: Fluctuations in Blood Glucose Levels Influence Support for Social Welfare. Psychological Science 24: 25502556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aarøe, Lene, Petersen, Michael Bang, and Arceneaux, Kevin. 2017. The Behavioral Immune System Shapes Political Intuitions: Why and How Individual Differences in Disgust Sensitivity Underlie Opposition to Immigration. American Political Science Review, 111: 277294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, Woo-Young, Kishida, Kenneth T., Xiaosi, Gu, Lohrenz, Terry, Harvey, Ann, Alford, John R., Smith, Kevin B., et al. 2014. “Nonpolitical Images Evoke Neural Predictors of Political Ideology.” Current Biology 24 (22): 26932699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alford, John R., Funk, Carolyn L., and Hibbing, John R.. 2005. “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?American Political Science Review 99 (2): 153167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amodio, David M., Jost, John T., Master, Sarah L., and Yee, Cindy M.. 2007. “Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism”, Nature Neuroscience, 10: 12461247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arceneaux, Kevin, Dunaway, Johanna, and Soroka, Stuart. 2018. “Elites Are People, Too: The Effects of Threat Sensitivity on Policymakers’ Spending Priorities.” PLoS One 13 (4): e0193781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bachleda, Sarah, Neuner, Fabian, Soroka, Stuart, Fournier, Patrick, and Naurin, Elin. 2020. “Individual-Level Differences in Negativity Biases in News Selection.” Personality and Individual Differences 155: 109675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Bert, Schumacher, Gijs, Gothreau, Claire, and Arceneaux, Kevin. 2020. “Conservatives and Liberals have Similar Physiological Responses to Threats: Evidence from Three Replications.” Nature Human Behaviour. Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., Bratslavsky, Ellen, Finkenauer, Catrin, and Vohs, Kathleen D.. 2001. “Bad is Stronger than Good.” Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebbington, Keely, Colin, MacLeod, Mark Ellison, T., and Fay, Nicolas. 2017. “The Sky Is Falling: Evidence of a Negativity Bias in the Social Transmission of Information.” Evolution and Human Behavior 38: 92101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolls, Paul D., Lang, Annie, and Potter, Robert F.. 2001. “The Effects of Message Valence and Listener Arousal on Attention, Memory, and Facial Muscular Responses to Radio Advertisements.” Communication Research 28 (5): 627651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, David, Minehart, Deborah, and Rabin, Matthew. 1999. “Loss Aversion in a Consumption–Savings Model.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 38: 155178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosnan, Sarah F., Jones, Owen D., Lambeth, Susan P., Mareno, Mary Catherine, Richardson, Amanda S., and Schapiro, Steven J.. 2007. “Endowment Effects in Chimpanzees.” Current Biology 17.19: 17041707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, John T., and Gardner, Wendi L.. 1999. “Emotion.” Annual Review of Psychology 50: 191214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carraro, Luciana, Castelli, Luigi, and Macchiella, Claudia. 2011. “The Automatic Conservative: Ideology-Based Attentional Asymmetries in the Processing of Valenced Information.” PLoS One 6.11: e26456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castelli, Luigi, and Carraro, Luciana. 2011. “Ideology Is Related to Basic Cognitive Processes Involved in Attitude Formation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47: 10131016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Codispoti, Maurizio, Bradley, Margaret M., and Lang, Peter J.. 2001. “Affective Reactions to Briefly Presented Pictures.” Psychophysiology 38 (03): 474478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cranmer, Skyler J., and Dawes, Christopher T.. 2012. “The Heritability of Foreign Policy Preferences.” Twin Research and Human Genetics 15: 5259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodd, Michael D., Balzer, Amanda, Jacobs, Carly M., Gruszczynski, Michael W., Smith, Kevin B., and Hibbing, John R.. 2012. “The Political Left Rolls with the Good and the Political Right Confronts the Bad: Connecting Physiology and Cognition to Preferences.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 367 (1589): 640649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federico, Christopher M., Johnston, Christopher D., and Lavine, Howard G.. 2014. “Context, Engagement, and the (Multiple) Functions of Negativity Bias.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37.3: 311312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friesen, Amanda, Gruszczynski, Michael W., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. Forthcoming. “Political Attitudes Vary with Detection of Androstenone.” Politics and the Life Sciences.Google Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2002. “Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 627641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, Maria Elizabeth, Lang, Annie, Zhou, Shuhua, and Bolls, Paul David. 2000. “Cognitive Access to Negatively Arousing News: An Experimental Investigation of Knowledge Gap.” Communication Research, 27: 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harms, Christopher, and Lakens, Daniel. 2018. “Making ‘Null Effects’ Informative: Statistical Techniques and Inferential Frameworks.” Journal of Clinical and Translational Research 3 (2): 382393.Google ScholarPubMed
Hatemi, Peter K., Funk, Carolyn L., Medland, Sarah E., Maes, Hermine M., Silberg, Judy L., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J.. 2009. “Genetic and Environmental Transmission of Political Attitudes over a Life Time.” The Journal of Politics 71 (03): 11411156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., and McDermott, Rose. 2011. Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Gillespie, Nathan A., Eaves, Lindon J., Maher, Brion S., Webb, Bradley T., Heath, Andrew C., Medland, Sarah al. 2011. “A Genome-Wide Analysis of Liberal and Conservative Political Attitudes.” The Journal of Politics 73: 271285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. 2013. Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. 2014. “Differences in Negativity Bias Underlie Variations in Political Ideology.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (03): 297307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inbar, Yoel, Pizarro, David A., and Bloom, Paul. 2009. “Conservatives Are More Easily Disgusted Than Liberals.” Cognition and Emotion 23: 714725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inbar, Yoel, Pizarro, David, Iyer, Ravi, and Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. “Disgust Sensitivity, Political Conservatism, and Voting.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3.5: 537544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ju, Youngkee. 2008. “The Asymmetry in Economic News Coverage and its Impact on Public Perceptions in South Korea.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 22: 237249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanai, Ryota, Feilden, Tom, Firth, Colin, and Rees, Geraint. 2011. “Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults.” Current Biology 21.8: 677680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kam, Cindy D., and Estes, Beth A.. 2016. “Disgust Sensitivity and Public Demand for Protection.” The Journal of Politics 78: 481496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President’s Party.” American Political Science Review 71: 4466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1978. “Political Person Perception: The Asymmetrical Influence of Sentiment and Choice on Perceptions of Presidential Candidates.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (8): 859871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jill. 1991. “Negativity Effects in Impression Formation: A Test in the Political Arena.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 412418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jill. 1996. “Negativity in Impressions of Presidential Candidates Revisited: The 1992 Election.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22: 288295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoll, Benjamin R., O’Daniel, Tyler J., and Cusato, Brian. 2015. “Physiological Responses and Political Behavior: Three Reproductions Using a Novel Dataset.” Research and Politics 2.4: 2053168015621328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, Annie, Bolls, Paul, Potter, Robert F., and Kawahara, Karlynn. 1999. “The Effects of Production Pacing and Arousing Content on the Information Processing of Television Messages.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 43: 451475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, Annie, Zhou, Shuhua, Schwartz, Nancy, Bolls, Paul D., and Potter, Robert F.. 2000. “The Effects of Edits on Arousal, Attention, and Memory for Television Messages: When an Edit Is an Edit Can an Edit Be Too Much?Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 44: 94109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, Peter, Greenwald, Mark K., Bradley, Margaret M., and Hamm, Alfons O.. 1993. “Looking at Pictures: Affective, Facial, Visceral, and Behavioral Reactions.” Psychophysiology 30: 261273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lang, Peter, and Bradley, Margaret. 2007. The International Affective Picture System (IAPS) in the Study of Emotion and Attention. In Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment, eds. Coan, J. A. and Allen, John J. B., 2946. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R. 1982. “Negativity in Political Perception.” Political Behavior 4: 353377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 5.1: 3161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose, Tingley, Dustin, and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2014. “Assortative Mating on Ideology Could Operate through Olfactory Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 58: 9971005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, Scott P., Garza, John P., Wiebe, Sandra A., Dodd, Michael D., Smith, Kevin B., Hibbing, John R., and Espy, Kimberly Andrews. 2014. “Applying the Flanker Task to Political Psychology: A Research Note.” Political Psychology 35.6: 831840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikels, Joseph A., Fredrickson, Barbara L., Larkin, Gregory R., Lindberg, Casey M., Maglio, Sam J., and Reuter-Lorenz, Patricia A.. 2005. “Emotional Category Data on Images from the International Affective Picture System.” Behavior Research Methods 37: 626630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, Mark, Gonzalez, Frank J., Giuseffi, Karl, Sievert, Benjamin, Smith, Kevin B., Hibbing, John R., and Dodd, Michael D.. 2016. “Political Conservatism Predicts Asymmetries in Emotional Scene Memory.” Behavioural Brain Research 306: 8490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Öhman, Arne, Flykt, Anders, and Esteves, Francisco. 2001. “Emotion Drives Attention: Detecting the Snake in the Grass.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130: 466478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Öhman, Arne, and Mineka, Susan. 2001. “Fears, Phobias, and Preparedness: Toward an Evolved Module of Fear and Fear Learning.” Psychological Review 108: 483522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osmundsen, Mathias, Hendry, David, Laustsen, Lasse, Smith, Kevin, and Petersen, Michael Bang. Forthcoming. “The Psychophysiology of Political Ideology: Replications, Reanalysis, and Recommendations.” The Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
Oxley, Douglas R., Smith, Kevin B., Alford, John R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Miller, Jennifer L., Scalora, Mario, Hatemi, Peter K., and Hibbing, John R.. 2008. “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits.” Science 321 (5896): 16671670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Michael Bang, Sznycer, Daniel, Sell, Aarøn, Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John. 2013. “The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper-Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of Self-Interest over Economic Redistribution.” Psychological Science 24.7: 10981103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Michael Bang, Aarøe, Lene, Jensen, Niels Holm, and Curry, Oliver. 2014. “Social Welfare and the Psychology of Food Sharing: Short‐Term Hunger Increases Support for Social Welfare.” Political Psychology 35.6: 757773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Michael Bang, and Laustsen, Lasse. 2019. “Upper‐Body Strength and Political Egalitarianism: Twelve Conceptual Replications.” Political Psychology 40.2: 375394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Johnathan C., Smith, Kevin B., and Hibbing, John R.. 2016. “Physiology and Political Beliefs: A Response to Knoll, O’Daniel, and Cusato." Research and Politics 3.3: 2053168016662892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, Carlisle. 2014. “Arguing for a Negligible Effect.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 10831091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravaja, Niklas. 2004. “Contributions of Psychophysiology to Media Research: Review and Recommendations.” Media Psychology 6: 193235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renshon, Jonathan, Lee, Jooa Julia, and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “Physiological Arousal and Political Beliefs.” Political Psychology 36: 569585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, Rafaela Larsen, Pompéia, Sabine, and Bueno, Orlando Francisco Amodeo. 2005. “Comparison of Brazilian and American Norms for the International Affective Picture System (IAPS).” Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 27: 208215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, Paul, and Royzman, Edward B.. 2001. “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5: 296320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Darren, Fonzo, Greg, Simmons, Alan N., Dawes, Christopher T., Flagan, Taru, Fowler, James H., and Paulus, Martin P.. 2013. “Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.” PLoS One 8.2: e52970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Settle, Jaime E., Dawes, Christopher T., Christakis, Nicholas A., and Fowler, James H.. 2010. “Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology.” The Journal of Politics 72: 11891198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheafer, Tamir, and Dvir-Gvirsman, Shira. 2010. “The Spoiler Effect: Framing Attitudes and Expectations toward Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 47 (2): 205215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, Pamela. 1996. “Hard Wired for News: Using Biological and Cultural Evolution to Explain the Surveillance Function.” Journal of Communication 46: 3247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, Natalie J., and Fazio, Russell H.. 2009. “Political Ideology, Exploration of Novel Stimuli, and Attitude Formation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45: 995998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, Robert F., Detenber, Benjamin H., Roedema, Thomas M., and Reiss, Jason E.. 1999. “Emotion Processing in Three Systems: The Medium and the Message.” Psychophysiology 36: 619627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, N. Kyle, Cacioppo, John T., Larsen, Jeff T., and Chartrand, Tanya L.. 2003. “May I Have Your Attention, Please: Electrocortical Responses to Positive and Negative Stimuli.” Neuropsychologia 41: 171183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Kevin B., Oxley, Douglas, Hibbing, Matthew V., Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 2011. “Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations.” PloS One 6: e25552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soroka, Stuart. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart, and McAdams, Stephen. 2015. “News, Politics, and Negativity.” Political Communication 32: 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart, Fournier, Patrick, and Nir, Lilach. 2019. “Cross-National Evidence of a Negativity Bias in Psychophysiological Reactions to News.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (38): 1888818892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soroka, Stuart, Fournier, Patrick, Nir, Lilach, and Hibbing, John. 2019. “Psychophysiology in the Study of Political Communication: An Expository Study of Individual-Level Variation in Negativity Biases.” Political Communication 26 (2): 288302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrizzi, John A. Jr., Shook, Natalie J., and McDaniel, Michael A.. 2013. “The Behavioral Immune System and Social Conservatism: A Meta-Analysis.” Evolution and Human Behavior 34.2: 99108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trussler, Marc, and Soroka, Stuart. 2014. “Consumer Demand for Cynical and Negative News Frames.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 19: 360379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1991. “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 10391061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, Joshua M., Inbar, Yoel, Aarøe, Lene, Barclay, Pat, Barlow, Fiona Kate, De Barra, Micheal, Vaughn Becker, al. 2016. “Parasite Stress and Pathogen Avoidance Relate to Distinct Dimensions of Political Ideology across 30 Nations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113.44: 1240812413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigil, Jacob M. 2010. “Political Leanings Vary with Facial Expression Processing and Psychosocial Functioning.” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 13.5: 547558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Glenn D., and Patterson, John R.. 1968. “A New Measure of Conservatism.” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 7: 264269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: Link

Fournier et al. Dataset

Supplementary material: PDF

Fournier et al. supplementary material

Fournier et al. supplementary material

Download Fournier et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 364 KB
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Negativity Biases and Political Ideology: A Comparative Test across 17 Countries
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Negativity Biases and Political Ideology: A Comparative Test across 17 Countries
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Negativity Biases and Political Ideology: A Comparative Test across 17 Countries
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *