EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 1   Physiological  Arousal  and  Self-­‐Reported  Valence  for  Erotica  Images  Correlate  with  Sexual   Policy  Preferences Amanda Friesen Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis CA504J, 425 University Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46202 [email protected] Kevin B. Smith University of Nebraska-Lincoln [email protected] John R. Hibbing University of Nebraska-Lincoln [email protected] ABSTRACT Individuals do not always accurately report the forces driving their policy preferences. Such inaccuracy may result from the fact that true justifications are socially undesirable or less persuasive than competing justifications or are unavailable in conscious awareness. Because of the delicate nature of these issues, people may be particularly likely to misstate the reasons for preferences on gay marriage, abortion, abstinence-only education and premarital sex. Advocates on both sides typically justify their preferences in terms of preserving social order, maintaining moral values, or protecting civil liberties, not in terms of their own sexual preferences. Though these are the stated reasons, in empirical tests we find that psychophysiological response to sexual images also may be a significant driver of policy attitudes. Key words: sexual policy attitudes, physiology and politics, erotica response Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [BCS-0826828]. Authors’ note: Friesen is assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and Faculty Research Fellow for the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis. Smith and Hibbing are professors in the Department of Political Science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This is the author's manuscript of the article to be published in final edited form at: Friesen, A., Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2016). Physiological Arousal and Self-Reported Valence for Erotica Images Correlate with Sexual Policy Preferences. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. http://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw008 EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 2         Arguments employed in support of policy preferences are a central element of the political arena. Effective arguments may pull the undecided toward particular preferences, increasing the odds of policy enactment. Ineffective arguments may do the opposite, pushing individuals toward the other side and diminishing the likelihood the preference will become the law of the land. For at least two reasons the arguments individuals deploy in support of their political preferences do not always reflect the true forces driving their adoption of those policy stances. First, savvy political players may recognize that true reasons for preferences are not as compelling as alternative arguments in the marketplace of ideas. Scholars of morality politics, for example, suggest that calls to regulate “sinful” behaviors—e.g. prostitution, drug and alcohol consumption—are often justified on the grounds of maintaining social order even though empirical analyses suggest they are more about legislating moral codes than reducing collective social harm (Meier & Haider-Markel, 1996; Smith, 1999; Haider-Markel, 1999; Meier 1999). Second, people are often unaware of the real reasons for their preferences and thus, unsurprisingly, cannot reconstruct those reasons with complete accuracy. The human mind is astonishingly good at constructing post hoc reasoning for attitudes and behaviors (Lodge & Taber, 2013). The conscious and unconscious inaccuracies in the reasons proffered to justify opinions may meld together because the inaccurate—but often more persuasive—rationalizations of policy preferences are likely to be internalized. Even if individuals provide partially inaccurate reasons for their preferences, they are not necessarily being duplicitous; they simply are offering explanations they may believe to be more accurate and complete than they actually are. Understanding the real motivations underlying preferences—which may involve identifying factors that individuals firmly believe are irrelevant to their positions—is important because it might help explain why seemingly convincing, logical arguments can be so unpersuasive in EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 3         policy debates. Simply put, debate may take place on one set of points while the source of fundamental differences are not considered, let alone debated. Appreciation of the range of factors that formulate an individual’s policy preferences could thus help explain why some policy debates remain so polarized and intractable, help illuminate the reasons policy divides can be so hard to bridge, and possibly reveal a path to negotiating those differences. Our primary goal in this paper is to examine whether certain policy preferences are associated with survey and psychophysiological responses to stimuli that seemingly have little relevance or direct connection with the reasons people give for their policy positions. We focus primarily on sex- related policy positions; more specifically, preferences on abortion, gay marriage, abstinence- only sex education, and premarital sex. The core question is whether preferences on these issues are products of more than the reasons typically employed to justify applicable policy positions. Perhaps the closest parallel to this approach is found in the literature on racial attitudes, exploring the reasons people oppose (or favor) policies such as affirmative action and welfare. One group of scholars contends that opponents of affirmative action may have principled positions based on objections to government involvement in dictating the individuals that businesses should hire and universities should admit. Similarly, opponents of welfare may legitimately believe that such programs diminish personal responsibility and are deleterious for recipients in the long run (broadly referred to as principled conservatism; see Sniderman & Carmines, 1997; Sniderman, Cosby & Howell, 2000). Yet another group of scholars asserts that positions opposing affirmative action and social welfare are not really motivated by principled reasoning but rather by a new style of racism. In this telling, arguments about liberty and individual responsibility are fig leafs designed to hide the racially-based motivation for such positions, and principled arguments are invoked as more sellable in the marketplace of ideas EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 4         (Sidanius et al., 1996; Kinder & Sanders, 1996; Kinder & Sears, 1981; Feldman & Huddy, 2005; Petersen, 2012). Proponents of this perspective may not suggest that principled conservative arguments are consciously manipulative; indeed, the underlying motivation could be associated more with implicit rather than explicit cognitive processes (Pratto & Shih, 2000; Vanman et al., 2004). This finding suggests that individuals may not fully articulate the forces driving their opinions both because they are socially undesirable and possibly consciously unavailable. Our study also builds on the findings of physiological response to other emotional/arousal domains, including the connection between self-reported disgust toward various scenarios and non-conscious response to disgusting images. In both cases, levels of disgust are predictive of attitudes toward issues like gay marriage (Smith, Alford, Hibbing, Oxley & Hibbing 2012; Balzer & Jacobs 2011). Whereas reactions to disgust and other negative stimuli appear to be universally valenced (though differing in intensity; see Smith et al. 2012; Hibbing, Smith & Alford 2014; Soroka & McAdams 2015), physiological responses to erotica are largely considered appetitive, though may be consciously evaluated both negatively and positively by different individuals. We posit the variance in these responses may help us understand preferences for four of the most contentious sex-related issues in modern American politics: abortion, gay marriage, sex education in schools, and premarital sex. In the research presented below, we find that individual attitudes on these positions do indeed correlate with variables that all sides generally treat as irrelevant to the larger policy debates. Abortion. What reasons do people typically give for their opposition to abortion or for their support of abortion rights? The most common assertion of those opposed to abortion is that it is murder. In defending their position, topics usually addressed include the sanctity of life, the viability of the fetus, the nature of personhood, fetal development (when does the fetus begin to EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 5         feel pain or develop certain organs?), and the universality of human life -- whether that life is pre- or post-natal. Though public opinion on abortion has changed little over time, the ability of one side to frame sub-issues – like “partial-birth abortion” – seems to contribute to small shifts in aggregate attitudes (Wilcox & Norrander, 2002; Gerrity, 2010). More specifically, terms such as “partial-birth”–rather than “dilation and extraction”–cue individuals to think about the fetus as a person–pushing the focus of “rights” in that direction and away from the mother. Those supportive of pro-choice policies also employ the language of human rights but in the other direction. They believe women, at least at certain stages of gestation and in certain circumstances, have the right to decide to terminate their pregnancy (McCabe, 2005; Wilcox & Norrander, 2002; Adams, 1997; Sapiro & Shames, 2009; Luker, 1984). Note that neither side employs personal attitudes toward sex in defense of their own positions, though they may suspect it influences their opponents. For example, Kreeft (2013) decries the tendency of pro- choicers to insist that the controversy over abortion is really about “sex, not babies.” Gay Marriage. Arguments over gay marriage also tend to ignore sex. Opponents stress that gay marriage will harm heterosexual marriage, going so far as to instigate passage (in 1996) of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including taxes, insurance, and Social Security benefits. Some opponents claim that the specific primary purpose of marriage is the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children (Jost, 2008; TFP Student Action, 2013). They note that same-sex couples cannot procreate and that if gay couples were permitted to marry and even to raise children, that the interests of the child would be harmed because that child will be denied either a mother or father (Jost, 2008). Opponents further believe that same-sex marriage violates natural law and offends God; in fact, only about 10% of gay marriage opponents mention reasons other than EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 6         religious beliefs to support their positions (Pew Research Center June 6, 2013). Supporters of same-sex marriage could not disagree more with the arguments just stated but, similarly, attitudes toward sex do not much factor into their arguments either. Supporters of same-sex marriage usually invoke the language of civil and human rights, pointing to the constitutional violation of denying things such as hospital visitations and legal protection to some citizens and not others. It was on just such grounds that gay marriage proponents successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in United States vs Windsor (2013) to declare key sections of DOMA unconstitutional. Previously, the court had ruled that homosexuals as a group did not reach the level of scrutiny required to indicate allegedly discriminatory laws were violations of the 14th Amendment (Dworkin, 1996). The dramatic changes in public opinion toward homosexuality (Pew Research Center 2013) and the subsequent court cases granting rights to gays and lesbians could be attributed to the development of rights-based arguments and to the fact that anti-homosexual laws merely demonstrate moral condemnation and do not seem to harm any other group (Dworkin, 1996). These rights-based arguments also may develop as homosexual individuals become more visible in the public eye, and there is evidence familiarity or “normalizing contact” is created in areas with denser LGB populations (Flores, 2014). Sex Education. What sexually-related information should school-age children be given? This issue has also become firmly embedded in the political arena. Beginning in 1982 but increasing exponentially in 1996, the federal government provided funding for sex education programs teaching “the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity” (Title V, Section 510 (A) of the Social Security Act). Until the program was allowed to expire in 2009, over $1 billion was provided to schools willing to teach “abstinence only” as opposed to more comprehensive sex education. Many states also enacted laws designed to EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 7         control the information schools provided about sex and contraception. Though sex can hardly be avoided entirely in discussions of sex education, those arguing the pros and cons of “abstinence only” never use their own sexual tendencies as the justification for their policy preferences. Instead, they marshal data on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of abstinence only programs in avoiding out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Mostly, data are thrown back and forth concerning whether abstinence only or comprehensive sex education (which typically includes information on various birth control options) is more effective at curtailing teenage pregnancies (Santelli et al., 2006; Clemmitt, 2010). Sex Before Marriage. Premarital sex may not seem like a public policy matter but it is relevant to many social issues and governmental policies and has occasionally been the direct subject of governmental action. Unwanted pregnancies frequently result from premarital sex, and the economic consequences are substantial. Various ideas have surfaced to address the issue of premarital sex. In early 2013, legislators in Idaho supported passage of a joint memorandum that would have urged the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit the implied portrayal or discussion of premarital sex on television anytime between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. This legislation easily passed the relevant committee in the Idaho House of Representatives before losing momentum (Associated Press, 2013). Debates on premarital sex revolve around discussions of its economic and other consequences. People believe their preferences are based on concern for teenagers or for social order and stability, and they are understandably reluctant to believe that their own response to sexual situations could color their political preferences. In sum, the rationale individuals provide for their preferences on policies concerning abortion, gay marriage, sex education, and premarital sex is typically couched in the language of human and civil rights, the perceived effectiveness of various policy proposals, and the need to maintain EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 8         social order. Rarely heard in these debates are individuals’ claims that their own attitudes toward sex motivate their policy preferences. Indeed, we think it likely that most people would vehemently deny that the nature of their own response to sexual situations is at all relevant to their policy preferences. Are they correct? Our goal was to determine whether an individual’s responsiveness—both self-reported and involuntary (sub-threshold)—to sexual situations serves as a marker of their positions on sex related issues independent of the rationales typically provided. If preferences for abortion policy, gay marriage, abstinence only sex education, and premarital sex are formed only on the basis of perceived rights and policy effectiveness, the personal sexual responses of the individuals holding the preferences simply should not be relevant to those positions. We hypothesize, however, that being more negatively disposed and more physiologically responsive to sexual situations will correlate with preferences supporting greater regulation of individual choices related to sexual behavior; that is, with opposition to abortion rights, gay marriage, and premarital sex and with support for abstinence-only sex education. The logic for the part of this hypothesis relating to self-reported response to sexually explicit material is straightforward. Those who report that certain sexual situations are not positively valenced are expected to be more likely to adopt positions that will diminish sexual activity (firm restrictions on abortion, bans on gay marriage, preaching abstinence, and doing whatever is possible to diminish premarital sex). Conversely, those who consciously assign positive valence to sex-related stimuli are expected to have more liberal attitudes to sexual choices and the regulation of reproductive opportunities. The second component of sexual response—degree of physiological arousal in response to sexually explicit material—is a relatively novel proposition. Here we hypothesize that those who EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 9         are more physiologically aroused by sexual situations will be more likely to adopt “restrictive” policy preferences. Our measure of sub-threshold response (electrodermal activity) indexes arousal, but not valence. In theory it is possible that higher activation of this system could be triggered by arousal to a stimulus perceived as aversive. In other words, individuals who experience sexually explicit images as arousing and negatively valenced will show an increase in electrodermal activity, and so will those who experience those images as arousing as positively valenced. Previous research, however, consistently shows that such images are high arousal and positively valenced, and that electrodermal responses index subthreshold arousal to what is broadly considered universally appetitive stimuli in humans (e.g. Bradley et al 2001). If this is indeed the case, then individuals who self-report negative responses to erotic images may actually be having strong, non-conscious appetitive responses to sexually explicit materials. In other words, they may be more likely to view sex as something that must be kept in check, which explains why they self-report negative responses to erotic images even when they could be having strong, appetitive non-conscious responses. We develop this line of reasoning in the paragraphs below, though we remain cautious in our interpretation. Because we cannot randomly assign political preferences nor speak to the valence of our sub-threshold response, the underlying mechanisms and theory are speculation at this point and certainly a fruitful area of future research. This conceptual framework is supported by numerous studies theorizing that affectively influenced opinions and behavior are rooted in activation of motivation systems that evolved to trigger reflexive responses to positive or negatively valenced stimuli as a means to promote fitness maximizing behavior in a given environmental context (Davidson, Jackson & Kalin, 2000, Konorski, 1967, Rolls, 2000; Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 1998). Most importantly for our EROTICA RESPONSES CORRELATE WITH SEX ATTITUDES 10         purposes, at least in terms of an implicit, reflexive response, erotica has been identified as a high arousal, hedonically (positively) valenced stimulus. It activates the appetitive motivation system. Empirical studies find sub-threshold physiological responses to erotic stimuli to be consistently associated with the activation of the appetitive motivation system, a finding that holds even when subjects self-reported ratings of these stimuli tend to be less positively valenced (Bradley et al., 2001, Lang et al., 1999; Codispoti et al., 2006; Schupp et al., 2006). Though this physiological response has been measured using everything from electroencephalography to cardiac measures, it can be captured using electrodermal activity (EDA), which reliably indexes activation of the sympathetic nervous system (Bradley et al., 2001). So there is clearly an empirically strong basis for viewing erotica as a high arousal, positively valenced stimulus that triggers activation of the appetitive motivation system, which can be indexed simply and non-invasively with EDA. What is less clear is how activation of this system might influence political attitudes. Activation of this system operates largely outside of conscious awareness, and while existing studies show the emotional states created by this activation clearly play a role in attitudes and behavior, personal, situation and cultural imperative also play a role (Bradley et al., 2001, p. 276). For example, Lang and Yegiyan (2011) find that images of restricted substances (e.g. alcohol, cigarettes) activate an appetitive motivation system for young people, which may suggest public service campaigns to discourage use of these products may be hindered when these images are used. In other words, some individuals have an “appetite” for the forbidden. If this is so, evolutionary psychology may provide a basis for hypothesizing a causal link between physiological responses to erotica and sex-related issue attitudes. Kurzban et al. (2010) suggest that preferred individual reproductive strategies are driving at least some issue attitudes