Papers by Benjamin Ruisch
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Across four studies, we test the hypothesis that people exhibit “slippery slope” thinking in thei... more Across four studies, we test the hypothesis that people exhibit “slippery slope” thinking in their judgments of moral character—that is, do observers judge that a person who behaves immorally will become increasingly immoral over time? In Study 1, we find that a person who commits an immoral act is judged as more likely to behave immorally and as having a worse character in the future than in the past. In Study 2, we find that it is the commission of an immoral act specifically—rather than merely attempting an immoral act—that drives this slippery slope effect. In Study 3, we demonstrate that observers judge the moral agent as more likely to commit acts of greater severity further in time after the initial immoral act. In Study 4, we find that this effect is driven by an anticipated corrupting of moral character, related to perceptions of the agent’s guilt.
PLOS ONE
Research has documented robust associations between greater disgust sensitivity and (1) concerns ... more 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 ampli...
The stark divide between the political right and left is rooted in conflicting beliefs, values, a... more The stark divide between the political right and left is rooted in conflicting beliefs, values, and personality—and, recent research suggests, perhaps even lower-level physiological differences between individuals. In this Registered Report, we investigated a novel domain of ideological differences in physiological processes: interoceptive sensitivity—that is, a person’s attunement to their own internal bodily states and signals (e.g., physiological arousal, pain, and respiration). We conducted two studies testing the hypothesis that greater interoceptive sensitivity would be associated with greater conservatism: one laboratory study in the Netherlands using a physiological heartbeat detection task and one large-scale online study in the U.S. employing an innovative webcam-based measure of interoceptive sensitivity. Contrary to our predictions, we found evidence that interoceptive sensitivity may instead predict greater political liberalism (vs. conservatism), although this associat...
Nature Human Behaviour
The presidency of Donald Trump represented a relatively unique event in modern American history, ... more The presidency of Donald Trump represented a relatively unique event in modern American history, whereby a sitting US president made numerous controversial remarks about minoritized groups yet nonetheless maintained substantial public support. Trump's comments constituted a departure from the egalitarian norms that had long characterized American political discourse. Here, we examine the potential effects of Trump's rhetoric on Americans' attitudes, predicting that these high-profile norm violations may have reshaped the personal prejudices of the American people. In 13 studies including over 10,000 participants, we tested how Americans' prejudice changed following the political ascension of Donald Trump. We found that explicit racial and religious prejudice significantly increased amongst Trump's supporters, whereas individuals opposed to Trump exhibited decreases in prejudice. Further, changing social norms appear to explain these changes in prejudice. These results suggest that Trump's presidency coincided with a substantial change in the topography of prejudice in the United States.
A primary focus of research on conspiracy theories has been understanding the psychological chara... more A primary focus of research on conspiracy theories has been understanding the psychological characteristics that predict people’s level of conspiracist ideation. However, the dynamics of conspiracist ideation—i.e., how such tendencies change over time—are not well understood. To help fill this gap in the literature, we used data from longitudinal studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that greater belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories at baseline predicts both greater endorsement of a novel real-world conspiracy theory involving voter fraud in the 2020 American Presidential election (Study 1) and increases in generic conspiracist beliefs over a period of several months (Studies 1 and 2). Thus, engaging with real-world conspiracy theories appears to act as a gateway, leading to more general increases in conspiracist ideation. Beyond enhancing our knowledge of conspiracist ideation, this work highlights the importance of fighting the spread of conspiracy theories.
A study involving over 2000 online participants tested a general framework regarding compliance w... more A study involving over 2000 online participants tested a general framework regarding compliance with a directive in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study featured not only a self-report measure of social distancing but also behavioral measures -- simulations that presented participants with graphical depictions mirroring multiple real-world scenarios and asked them to position themselves in relation to others in the scene. The conceptual framework highlights three essential components of a directive: (1) the source, some entity is advocating for a behavioral change; (2) the surrounding context, the directive is in response to some challenge; and (3) the target, the persons to whom the directive is addressed. Belief systems relevant to each of these three components are predicted, and were found, to relate to compliance with the social distancing directive. The implications of the findings for public service campaigns encouraging people to engage in social distancing are di...
182 pagesThe left-right political divide is among the most contentious in modern society, often e... more 182 pagesThe left-right political divide is among the most contentious in modern society, often eliciting more explicit acrimony than divisions based on race, religion, or social class. In this dissertation, I present three lines of research examining the ideological divide. This work illustrates the three main lenses through which I have approached the study of ideology, examining its causes, correlates and consequences. In the first series of studies I focus on the upstream causes of ideology, examining how individual differences in low-level physiological traits can influence a person’s political attitudes. In four studies (total N = 1,639) I provide evidence that genetically determined differences in gustatory (taste) sensitivity shape a person’s political ideology, with more taste-sensitive individuals tending to become more politically conservative. In the second line of research, I turn to the correlates of ideology, investigating how the same upstream factors that influence ideology can also shape other aspects of cognition for those on the left and right. In a series of 14 studies (total N = 4,595), I find that there are wide-ranging ideological differences in judgment and decision-making confidence, with political conservatives exhibiting greater metacognitive confidence across a broad range of judgment domains. I also find evidence that these differences in confidence are driven by the same upstream epistemic needs that shape political ideology. Finally, I consider the downstream consequences of ideology, examining how belonging to an ideological group, in turn, can influence a person’s cognition and behavior. In a series of 12 studies (total N = 9,917), I examine how shifting social norms among ideological ingroups reshaped Americans’ intergroup attitudes in the wake of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. I find evidence that Donald Trump’s political ascent substantially reshaped expressions of explicit prejudice among Americans—but that the direction of this change diverged sharply along ideological lines: conservatives (especially Trump supporters) showed significant increases in prejudice towards a wide range of minority groups. Liberals, conversely, showed significant decreases in prejudice over this same period. In conclusion, I consider some possible future research directions at the intersections of these three lines of work.2022-06-0
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 2021
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists have sought to better understand the psychologic... more In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists have sought to better understand the psychological characteristics associated with adoption of preventative behaviors. Several studies point to knowledge about the virus, trust in government officials, and trust in scientists as reliable predictors of social distancing, yet the exact nature of the relations between these predictor variables remains unexplored. Examining these relations in a study involving 998 participants, we found that less trust in former President Trump's ability to guide the nation through the COVID-19 crisis and greater trust in scientists predicted greater COVID-19 knowledge. In turn, greater COVID-19 knowledge predicted greater social-distancing behavior, and did so most strongly among those who reported (1) relatively low levels of trust in Trump and (2) relatively high levels of trust in scientists. These findings add a layer of complexity to our understanding of how knowledge about an issue and trust in authority figures shape behavior, suggesting that in addition to predicting the amount of knowledge people have on a certain issue, trust may play role in influencing the perceived validity of that knowledge as a basis for behavior. The implications of this work for campaigns aimed at increasing compliance with scientific guidelines are discussed.
medRxiv, 2020
Past research has established the value of social distancing as a means of deterring the spread o... more Past research has established the value of social distancing as a means of deterring the spread of COVID-19 largely by examining aggregate level data. Locales in which efforts were undertaken to encourage distancing experienced reductions in their rate of transmission. However, these aggregate results tell us little about the effectiveness of social distancing at the level of the individual, which is the question addressed by the current research. Four months after participating in a study assessing their social distancing behavior, 2,120 participants indicated whether they had contracted COVID-19. Importantly, the assessment of social distancing involved not only a self-report measure of how strictly participants had followed social distancing recommendations, but also a series of virtual behavior measures of social distancing. These simulations presented participants with graphical depictions mirroring specific real-world scenarios, asking them to position themselves in relation t...
Nations around the world have been witnessing a gradual erosion of democracy. Explanations for wh... more Nations around the world have been witnessing a gradual erosion of democracy. Explanations for why citizens increasingly support anti-democratic behavior and authoritarian leaders range from concern about changing racial demographics to growing polarization and cues from political elites. In 23 studies (total N = 16,353), we propose and test an alternative, more parsimonious account for why some people support anti-democratic behavior—and why this support often appears to be higher among those on the political right. We find that people across the political spectrum—both progressive/liberal and conservative alike—perceive that society is becoming increasingly morally liberal over time. This leads to feelings of advancement and growth among self-identified political liberals, but creates a sense of collective threat among conservatives, who fear for the continued existence of their ideological group. This sense of threat, in turn, drives conservatives to support anti-democratic behav...
Personality and Individual Differences, 2022
Individuals vary in their sensitivity to disgust-differences that have implications for intergrou... more Individuals vary in their sensitivity to disgust-differences that have implications for intergroup attitudes, political ideology, and beyond. However, the source of this variability in disgust sensitivity remains a subject of debate. In this work, we test the hypothesis that sensitivity to disgust is "calibrated" by an individual's concern about disease threats in their local ecology. Leveraging the COVID-19 pandemic, we obtain strong support for this hypothesis, finding that disgust sensitivity increased following the COVID-19 outbreak and that the degree of this increase was moderated by an individual's subjective concern about contracting the disease. This work fills a longstanding theoretical gap regarding the sources of variability in disgust sensitivity, while challenging the view that disgust sensitivity is an immutable individual difference. Given the role of disgust in motivating intergroup prejudice and political ideology, we anticipate that these increases in disgust sensitivity are likely to have important downstream societal implications.
Scientific Reports, 2021
Recent work has found that an individual’s beliefs and personal characteristics can impact percep... more Recent work has found that an individual’s beliefs and personal characteristics can impact perceptions of and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain individuals—such as those who are politically conservative or who endorse conspiracy theories—are less likely to engage in preventative behaviors like social distancing. The current research aims to address whether these individual differences not only affect people’s reactions to the pandemic, but also their actual likelihood of contracting COVID-19. In the early months of the pandemic, U.S. participants responded to a variety of individual difference measures as well as questions specific to the pandemic itself. Four months later, 2120 of these participants responded with whether they had contracted COVID-19. Nearly all of our included individual difference measures significantly predicted whether a person reported testing positive for the virus in this four-month period. Additional analyses revealed that all of these relationshi...
Conspiracy theories proliferate during times of turmoil. Not surprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic ... more Conspiracy theories proliferate during times of turmoil. Not surprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment in which virus-related conspiracy theories have thrived. The current study leverages prior research to shed light on the antecedents and consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs in the important, real-world context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we found that suffering greater negative economic consequences due to the pandemic predicted greater belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and this relation was strongest among those generally inclined to believe conspiracy theories. We then examined the consequences of coming to hold such beliefs. Greater endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories predicted less social distancing behavior, greater minimization of the threat of COVID-19, and lower levels of general stress. These findings replicate and extend prior research showing a link between conspiracy theory beliefs and rejection of scientific advice, ...
PLOS ONE, 2021
A study involving over 2000 online participants (US residents) tested a general framework regardi... more A study involving over 2000 online participants (US residents) tested a general framework regarding compliance with a directive in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study featured not only a self-report measure of social distancing but also virtual behavior measures—simulations that presented participants with graphical depictions mirroring multiple real-world scenarios and asked them to position themselves in relation to others in the scene. The conceptual framework highlights three essential components of a directive: (1) the source, some entity is advocating for a behavioral change; (2) the surrounding context, the directive is in response to some challenge; and (3) the target, the persons to whom the directive is addressed. Belief systems relevant to each of these three components are predicted, and were found, to relate to compliance with the social distancing directive. The implications of the findings for public service campaigns encouraging people to engage in social...
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021
Significance Previous work establishes the effectiveness of social distancing for reducing COVID-... more Significance Previous work establishes the effectiveness of social distancing for reducing COVID-19 transmission at the aggregate level: Locales in which restrictions were imposed experienced a reduction in spread of the virus. However, we know little about the effectiveness of social distancing at the level of the individual. Do individuals who engage in social distancing reduce their personal likelihood of contracting COVID-19? Or are these effects only evident in the aggregate? A longitudinal investigation involving 2,120 online participants demonstrated that individual differences matter. Participants who exhibited greater social distancing on a virtual behavior measure—simulations presenting graphical depictions of specific real-world scenarios, asking them to position themselves relative to others in the scene—were less likely to contract COVID-19 subsequently.
The divide between political liberals and conservatives is rapidly growing. Several influential t... more The divide between political liberals and conservatives is rapidly growing. Several influential theories contend that this divide hinges on orientations towards social groups, such that conservatives (versus liberals) show a greater tendency to favor their “ingroups” and discriminate against “outgroups.” However, other theories contend that liberals and conservatives do not differ in their degree of intergroup bias. Both perspectives have received empirical support, and the debate has reached a standstill. We argue that this theoretical and empirical stalemate stems from inherent limitations of examining attitudes towards real-world social groups—a strategy used by both sides of the debate. Drawing on social identity theory, we propose an alternative approach—using “minimal groups” (i.e., experimentally constructed groups)—to determine whether and why ideological differences in intergroup bias may exist. Finding support for either account will help resolve this longstanding debate a...
Uploads
Papers by Benjamin Ruisch