Motivated political reasoning is a central phenomenon in political psychology, but no scholarly consensus exists as to its cause. In one influential account, motivated political reasoning is caused by goals to control emotional states. This explanation is often assumed, but has rarely been tested empirically. It implies, I argue, that individual differences in how people control their emotions (i.e., in emotion regulation strategies) should influence outcomes caused by motivated political reasoning, such as perceptual divides over politically relevant facts. I hypothesize such perceptual divides to be negatively associated with emotional acceptance and positively associated with cognitive reappraisal—two key emotion regulation strategies. I test these hypotheses in the specific context of reasoning about facts related to immigration politics in Denmark using a mix of experimental and cross-sectional survey data from three nationally representative samples of the Danish voter population (total N = 4186). In the specific context of the present study, the results do not support the often-assumed idea that motivated political reasoning is driven by efforts to regulate emotions. These findings raise important questions about the conditions under which emotion regulation might play a role in motivated political reasoning.

In many countries, overall animal experimentation is not significantly decreasing or becoming less severe. Does this show that these countries’ programs to promote alternatives and the “three Rs” of “replace, reduce, refine” are failing? Scholars and activists sometimes take this for granted, but representatives of “three Rs” programs have disagreed. This article makes two contributions to the debate: one conceptual and one normative. First, it draws attention to the distinction between evaluating impact (whether a program makes a difference) and evaluating sufficiency (whether a program makes enough of a difference to achieve its goals). Total numbers are typically unhelpful in assessing impact, but depending on goals, they can be relevant in assessing sufficiency. Second, this article argues that an overall decrease in harm to animals in experimentation is a sensible policy goal. This article concludes with suggestions for how to go beyond the “three Rs” to effect overall change.

Population is a key factor of national power. Declining fertility rates, especially in major economies, are reshaping global power dynamics by shrinking workforces amidst aging populations. In response, more nations are adopting techno-natalist policies, promoting reproductive technologies (“reprotech”) like IVF to increase birth rates. Advances in genetic embryo selection, gene editing, in vitro gametogenesis, and artificial wombs could further enhance these policies by improving birth rates, health, and human capital. This article examines current and emerging reprotechnologies, the policy landscape, socioeconomic and geopolitical implications, and future research directions. By shaping national and global gene pools, reprotech policies and practices offer a paradigmatic case of gene–culture coevolution. If these technologies prove safe and effective, nations that embrace them are likely to gain geopolitical and evolutionary advantages over those that do not.

Despite the destruction it inevitably engenders and the opposition it often elicits, war remains a near-human universal. There is almost no society, across time or place, that has not experienced some form of violent conflict, whether internally or against its neighbors or adversaries. The most common explanations for the causes of war and conflict tend to center around social and material factors, such as conflicts over resources, territory, or regime type. Certainly, these factors play a role in many conflicts, but they cannot alone explain every war. Other arguments, however, drawn from evolutionary psychology and biological anthropology, based on fundamental aspects of human nature with regard to male coalitionary psychology, do posit specific sources for conflict that provide an underlying platform for its emergence and can help explain its wide variety across time and space. A comprehensive and accurate understanding of the nature of war must include these considerations.

The Biden administration requested comments regarding “Public and Private Sector Uses of Biometric Technologies” in the Federal Register from October 2021 to January 2022. This generated 130 responses, helped shape the “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights,” and resulted in Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” While the Trump administration immediately rescinded this executive order, these comments provide insight into salient AI biometrics technologies and relevant political players. We first identify AI biometric technologies before asking which institutions and individuals commented (RQ1), and what the substance and tenor of responses were regarding the opportunities and threats posed by AI biometrics (RQ2-a) based on respondent type (RQ2-b). We use text mining and qualitative analyses to illuminate how uncertainty about AI biometric technology in this nascent policy subsystem reflects participants’ language use and policy preferences.

There remain important questions about how personality shapes risk perceptions, willingness to engage in protective behaviors, and policy preferences during a changing pandemic. Focusing on the Big-5 and COVID-19 attitudes, we find associations between risk perceptions and negative emotionality and agreeableness, as well as between each Big-5 trait and protective behaviors and support for government restrictions. These associations are mostly stable over time, with instability pronounced for lockdown policy support, where agreeableness and conscientiousness diminish in importance as pandemic conditions improve. Negative emotionality, conscientiousness, and agreeableness reduce differences between the political left and right and between those who do and do not trust experts. We highlight the heterogeneous interplay between personality and political ideology to understand pandemic policy support, attitudes, and behaviors.

Mental health, like physical health, represents an important resource for participating in politics. We bring new insights from six surveys from five different countries (Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States) that combine diversified questions on mental health problems and political participation. Unlike previous research on depression, we find only limited evidence for the Resource Hypothesis that mental health problems reduce political participation, except in the case of voting and only in some samples. Instead, we find mixed evidence that mental health problems and their comorbidity (experiencing multiple problems) are associated with increased political participation. Our study leads us to more questions than answers: are the measures available in public opinion surveys appropriate for the task? Do general survey samples adequately capture people with mental disorders? And is the assumption that poor mental health reduces political participation wrong?

Existing academic research has highlighted a connection between dietary habits and political beliefs. An individual’s dietary choices can mean more than just the need or pleasure of eating. Dietary choice can also be tied to a personal identity, in which food consumption reinforces through other beliefs and in-group identities, including partisan affiliation and political ideology. This study analyzes survey data from the Natural Marketing Institute’s (NMI) 2019 Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) survey and compares the results to Mosier and Rimal’s original evaluation using the NMI’s 2016 LOHAS survey data. The results show most Americans continue to have a meat-based diet irrespective of political party, with gender being the most consistent and robust explanatory factor for dietary choice. However, there are some notable shifts in dietary choice and significance for certain partisan affiliations that highlight how in-group dynamics may be reflective of attitude and behavioral norms.

Research shows that attractive women may face disadvantages in male-dominated contexts or those stereotypically associated with masculinity, because they tend to be ascribed more stereotypically feminine character traits and capabilities. This is known as the “beauty is beastly effect.” However, its impact on political elections remains largely unexamined. This study investigates whether such an effect exists for female candidates in Germany, where political competition is male-dominated and rewards stereotypically masculine traits. Using a comprehensive data set from the 2005 to 2021 federal elections, we empirically test for interactions between gender and physical attractiveness. Despite extensive multilevel analyses, no evidence was found for the “beauty is beastly effect” in this context. Nevertheless, positive main effects suggest female candidates may still face disadvantages. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

There is a longstanding belief amongst scholars of psychophysiology that activation is positively associated with attention. However, recent work on news avoidance suggests that activation from negative content is linked to decreased attention. The current study seeks to investigate these different expectations and suggests that both increased and decreased activation can be linked to both attention and avoidance. Using an experiment that employs skin conductance levels and heart rate to evaluate subjects’ media selection choices, the author finds that even as deactivation is most likely to precede the decision to turn away from content, roughly 30% of the time activation precedes turning away. These findings confirm prior conclusions from the psychophysiological communications literature, and in the news avoidance literature, but it also highlights the need for more nuanced expectations where activation and media selection are concerned.