Hibbing et al. propose that variation in political attitudes can be attributed to physiological and psychological differences in responding to negative events. Specifically, they summarize an impressive set of findings that highlight a link between conservatism and enhanced physiological and psychological responsivity to negative stimuli. Drawing from an evolutionary framework, they suggest that responses to negative events, rather than positive events, should have a strong influence on political attitudes because “good evolutionary reasons exist for negativity bias given that negative events can be much more costly in fitness terms than positive events are beneficial.”

We agree with Hibbing et al. that considering political attitudes from an evolutionary perspective is a useful means of integrating the largely disparate set of findings that exists in the current literature. However, we suggest that an evolutionary approach to understanding political attitudes and ideologies would view them not just as precautionary strategies employed to protect against potential threats but also as exploitative strategies designed to take advantage of potential opportunities.

Over the past decade, our lab has developed an evolutionary framework for understanding human behavior that focuses on fundamental motives – relatively independent, domain-specific psychological subsystems that act in response to recurring sets of threats, such as the need to protect oneself and avoid disease, as well as opportunities, such as finding a mate, taking care of kin, and affiliating with others. Using this framework, we have generated a network of novel and theoretically sensible findings linking fundamental motives to a broad range of psychological processes, including cognition (e.g., perception, attention, and memory; Ackerman et al. Reference Ackerman, Shapiro, Neuberg, Kenrick, Schaller, Becker, Griskevicius and Maner2006; Reference Ackerman, Becker, Mortensen, Sasaki, Neuberg and Kenrick2009; Maner et al. Reference Maner, Kenrick, Becker, Delton, Hofer, Wilbur and Neuberg2003; Reference Maner, Kenrick, Becker, Robertson, Hofer, Neuberg, Delton, Butner and Schaller2005), the expression of personality characteristics (Mortensen et al. Reference Mortensen, Becker, Ackerman, Neuberg and Kenrick2010; White et al. Reference White, Kenrick, Li, Mortensen, Neuberg and Cohen2012), economic decision-making (Griskevicius et al. Reference Griskevicius, Tybur, Ackerman, Delton, Robertson and White2012; Li et al. Reference Li, Kenrick, Griskevicius and Neuberg2012; White et al. Reference White, Kenrick, Neel and Neuberg2013a; Reference White, Li, Griskevicius, Kenrick and Neuberg2013c), and complex social behaviors (e.g., aggression, consumption, conformity, creativity, and leadership preferences; Griskevicius et al. Reference Griskevicius, Cialdini and Kenrick2006a; Reference Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini and Kenrick2006b; Reference Griskevicius, Tybur, Gangestad, Perea, Shapiro and Kenrick2009; Sundie et al. Reference Sundie, Kenrick, Griskevicius, Tybur, Vohs and Beal2011; White et al. Reference White, Kenrick and Neuberg2013b). As evidenced throughout this work, we have found it beneficial to consider human responding to both threats and opportunities. For example, in one series of studies we found that, whereas a threat-focused self-protection motive led men and women to become conforming (Griskevicius et al. Reference Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini and Kenrick2006b), an opportunity-focused mate acquisition motive led men, but not women, to become counter-conforming (Griskevicius et al. Reference Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini and Kenrick2006b). Given theoretical reasons for believing that the mind evolved to identify and manage both threat and opportunity affordances (Neuberg et al. Reference Neuberg, Kenrick, Schaller, Fiske, Gilbert and Lindzey2010), and the usefulness of examining responses to both threats and opportunities in our own empirical work, we believe it is critical for an evolutionary approach to political attitudes to similarly consider responses to both negative and positive aspects of social life.

Supporting this thinking, a coherent set of findings is beginning to emerge linking variation in political attitudes to human mating opportunities. Research by Weeden and colleagues finds that mating strategies are often a better predictor of attitudes toward recreational drug use and abortion than is political affiliation: Those who are sexually unrestricted and relatively more interested in short-term sexual relationships hold more favorable views of both drug use and abortion – attitudes that ostensibly facilitate sexual relations (Kurzban et al. Reference Kurzban, Dukes and Weeden2010; Weeden Reference Weeden2003). Political attitudes also vary across the course of a women's ovulatory cycle in functionally sensible ways (Durante et al. Reference Durante, Rae and Griskevicius2013): During peak fertility, when it is especially advantageous to prioritize opportunities to secure mates possessing cues of genetic fitness, women adopt more liberal political attitudes – a shift thought to facilitate short-term sexual relationships. Researchers have also begun to link political attitudes to male mating-relevant characteristics. For example, men with relatively greater upper body strength, muscularity, chest-to-waist ratio, and physical attractiveness tend to hold political attitudes favoring social hierarchy and inequality – attitudes that, if adopted by broader society, would strategically confer greater fitness opportunities for those possessing such dominance-relevant characteristics (Petersen et al. Reference Petersen, Sznycer, Sell, Cosmides and Tooby2013; Price et al. Reference Price, Kang, Dunn and Hopkins2011).

Finally, work from our own lab has demonstrated that ecological cues that intensify male intrasexual competition, such as resource scarcity or male-biased sex ratios, interact with mate-value to affect attitudes toward opportunity-providing government redistribution policies (Griskevicius et al. Reference Griskevicius, Tybur, Ackerman, Delton, Robertson and White2012; White et al. Reference White, Kenrick, Neel and Neuberg2013a). In one series of studies, for example, cues of resource scarcity led high mate-value males (i.e., those already advantaged in mate competition) – to be less favorable toward economic redistribution, but led low mate-value men (i.e., those already disadvantaged in mate competition) to be more enthusiastic about economic redistribution (White et al. Reference White, Kenrick, Neel and Neuberg2013a). Such relationships were observed in both real-world voting behavior and in controlled lab experiments.

As a whole, these studies suggest that political attitudes and preferences can be viewed as functionally strategic orientations directed toward increasing the likelihood that one successfully defends against potential threats and exploits available opportunities. Although the work reviewed has focused on mating strategies, future research might profitably consider the functional relationship between political attitudes and other positive aspects of social life, such as opportunities for seeking or enhancing affiliation, status, and kin care.

Overall, then, we agree with Hibbing et al. that an evolutionary approach to political attitudes has the potential to integrate a disparate set of empirical findings. Indeed, from our perspective it makes eminent sense to consider the functionality of political attitudes: To the extent that political attitudes can tangibly affect outcomes in responding to threats and opportunities (e.g., via social activism, voting behaviors, etc.), one would expect these attitudes to be functionally tuned to respond to the negative and positive aspects of social life. Using this thinking, we thus believe that Hibbing et al. have too narrowly focused on the relationship between political attitudes and responses to negative stimuli. Rather, we contend that a more comprehensive evolutionary framework, one that considers responses to both threats and opportunities, will better account for the empirical findings in the current literature and be better positioned to generate novel, testable hypotheses in future research.