Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:13:05.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political taste: Exploring how perception of bitter substances may reveal risk tolerance and political preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2021

Amanda Friesen Open the ORCID record for Amanda Friesen [Opens in a new window] ,
Aleksander Ksiazkiewicz Open the ORCID record for Aleksander Ksiazkiewicz [Opens in a new window]  and
Claire Gothreau
Amanda Friesen*
Affiliation:
Western University
Aleksander Ksiazkiewicz
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Claire Gothreau
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
*
Correspondence: Amanda Friesen, Western University, 1151 Richmond St., Room 4151, Department of Political Science, London, ONN6A 5C2, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Risk is endemic to the political arena and influences citizen engagement. We explore this connection by suggesting that risk-taking may be biologically instantiated in sensory systems. With specific attention to gender and gender identity, we investigate the connections between self-reported bitter taste reception, risk tolerance, and both of their associations with political participation. In three U.S. samples collected in 2019 and 2020, participants were asked to rate their preferences from lists of foods as well as whether they detected the taste of the substance N-Propylthiouracil (PROP) and, if so, the strength of the taste. In this registered report, we find that self-reported bitter taste preference, but not PROP detection, is positively associated with higher levels of risk tolerance as well as political participation. The pattern with gender and gender identity is mixed across our samples, but interestingly, we find that sex-atypical gender identity positively predicts political participation.

Keywords

political participationbitter tastegenderrisk tolerance
Type
Special Issue: Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Fall 2021 , pp. 152 - 171
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

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.)

References

Albers, C., & Läkens, D. (2018). When power analyses based on pilot data are biased: Inaccurate effect size estimators and follow-up bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 187–195.10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmanov, A. A., & Beauchamp, G. K. (2007). Taste receptor genes. Annual Review of Nutrition, 27, 389–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., & Miller, I. J. (1994). PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiology & Behavior, 56(6), 1165–1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S. L. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 1016–1023.10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.1016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bembich, S., Lanzara, C., Clarici, A., Demarini, S., Tepper, B. J., Gasparini, P., & Grasso, D. L. (2010). Individual differences in prefrontal cortex activity during perception of bitter taste using fNIRS methodology. Chemical Senses, 35(9), 801–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bittner, A., & Goodyear-Grant, E. (2017). Sex isn’t gender: Reforming concepts and measurements in the study of public opinion. Political Behavior, 39(4), 1019–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bord, R. J., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4), 830–840.Google Scholar
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Byrnes, N. K., & Hayes, J. E. (2016). Behavioral measures of risk tasking, sensation seeking and sensitivity to reward may reflect different motivations for spicy food liking and consumption. Appetite, 103, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowart, B. J., Yokomukai, Y., & Beauchamp, G. K. (1994). Bitter taste in aging: Compound-specific decline in sensitivity. Physiology & Behavior, 56(6), 1237–1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 97–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawes, C., Cesarini, D., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., & Oskarsson, S. (2014). The relationship between genes, psychological traits, and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 888–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, P. A., Friesen, A., and Sokhey, A. 2017. Understanding gender and political participation: Assessing the relationship between networks and dispositions [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dubovski, N., Ert, E., & Niv, M. Y. (2017). Bitter mouth-rinse affects emotions. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, V., Davidson, A. C., Kidd, J. R., Kidd, K. K., Speed, W. C., Pakstis, A. J., Reed, D. A., Snyder, D. J., & Bartoshuk, L. M. (2004). Bitter receptor gene (TAS2R38), 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) bitterness and alcohol intake. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, 28(1), 1629–1637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, J., Baker, L., & Dawes, C. (2008). Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 233–248.10.1017/S0003055408080209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, A., & Djupe, P. (2017). Conscientious women: The dispositional conditions of institutional treatment on civic involvement. Politics & Gender, 13(1), 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, A., Gruszczynski, M., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2020). Political attitudes vary with detection of androstenone. Politics and the Life Sciences, 39(1), 26–37.10.1017/pls.2019.18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garbarino, E., & Strahilevitz, M. (2004). Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business and Research, 57(7), 768–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidengil, E., & Stolle, D. (2021). Comparing self-categorisation approaches to measuring gender identity. European Journal of Politics and Gender, 4(1), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., McDermott, R., Bailey, J. M., & Martin, N. G. (2012). The different effects of gender and sex on vote choice. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. E., Bartoshuk, L. M., Kidd, J. R., & Duffy, V. B. (2008). Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. Chemical Senses, 33(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herz, R. (2008). The scent of desire: Discovering our enigmatic sense of smell. Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2013). Predisposed: Liberals, conservatives, and the biology of political differences. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, S., Cooper, A., Lee, J., & Harris, M. (2015). Biological Psychology. Sage.Google Scholar
Hwang, L. D., Breslin, P. A., Reed, D. R., Zhu, G., Martin, N. G., & Wright, M. J. (2016). Is the association between sweet and bitter perception due to genetic variation? Chemical Senses, 41(9), 737–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joseph, P. V., Reed, D. R., & Mennella, J. A. (2016). Individual differences among children in sucrose detection thresholds: relationship with age, gender, and bitter taste genotype. Nursing Research, 65(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kam, C. D. (2012). Risk attitudes and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 817–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, C. D., & Simas, E. (2012). Risk attitudes, candidate characteristics, and vote choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson Linnér, R., Biroli, P., Kong, E., Meddens, S., Wedow, R., Fontana, M. A., Lebreton, M., Tino, S. P., Abdellaoui, A., Hammerschlag, A. R., Nivard, M. G., Okbay, A., Rietveld, C. A., Timshel, P. N., Trzaskowski, M., Vlaming, R., Zünd, C. L., Bao, Y., Buzdugan, L., Caplin, A. H., … & Beauchamp, J. P. (2019). Genome-wide association analyses of risk tolerance and risky behaviors in over 1 million individuals identify hundreds of loci and shared genetic influences. Nature Genetics, 51(2), 245–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, K. L., Steinmann, L., Nurse, R. J., & Tepper, B. J. (2002). Genetic taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil influences food preference and reported intake in preschool children. Appetite, 38(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klemmensen, R., Hatemi, P., Hobolt, S., Petersen, I., Skytthe, A., & Nørgaard, A. (2012). The genetics of political participation, civic duty, and political efficacy across cultures: Denmark and the United States. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24(3), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, H. C., Mintz, J., Noda, A., Tinklenberg, J., & Yesavage, J. A. (2006). Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(5), 484–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macht, M., & Mueller, J. (2007). Increased negative emotional responses in PROP supertasters. Physiology & Behavior, 90(2/3), 466–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, M. L. (2016). Masculinity, femininity, and American political behavior. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, R., Tingley, D., & Hatemi, P. K. (2014). Assortative mating on ideology could operate through olfactory cues. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 997–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, B. P., Moeller, S. K., Riemer-Peltz, M., & Robinson, M. D. (2012). Sweet taste preferences and experiences predict prosocial inferences, personalities, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mennella, J. A., Pepino, M. Y., & Reed, D. R. (2005). Genetic and environmental determinants of bitter perception and sweet preferences. Pediatrics, 115(2), e216–e222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondak, J., Hibbing, M., Canache, D., Seligson, M., & Anderson, M. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J.A. (2015). Are women really more risk-averse than men? A re-analysis of the literature using expanded methods. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3), 566–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, J. S., Hwang, D. L. D., Zhong, V. W., An, J., Gharahkhani, P., Breslin, P. A., Wright, M. J., Lawlor, D. A., Whitfield, J., MacGregor, S., & Martin, N. G. (2018). Understanding the role of bitter taste perception in coffee, tea, and alcohol consumption through Mendelian randomization. Scientific Reports, 8, article 16414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruisch, B. C., Anderson, R. A., Inbar, Y., & Pizarro, D. A. (2021). A matter of taste: Gustatory sensitivity shapes political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Bitter taste causes hostility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1589–1597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2016). Individual differences in bitter taste preferences are associated with antisocial personality traits. Appetite, 96, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schienle, A., Giraldo, M., Spiegl, B., & Schwab, D. (2017). Influence of bitter taste on affective facial processing: An ERP study. Chemical Senses, 42(6), 473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, M. C., Holman, M. R., Diekman, A. B., & McAndrew, T. (2016). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology, 37(4), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P. (2013). Red brain, blue brain: Evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLOS ONE, 8(2), e52970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stein, L. J., Nagai, H., Nakagawa, M., & Beauchamp, G. K. (2003). Effects of repeated exposure and health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptance of a bitter beverage. Appetite, 40(2), 119–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweet-Cushman, J. (2016). Gender, risk assessment, and political ambition. Politics and the Life Sciences, 35(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tepper, B. J. (2008). Nutritional implications of genetic taste variation: The role of PROP sensitivity and other taste phenotypes. Annual Review of Nutrition, 28, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tezcür, G. M. (2016). Ordinary people, extraordinary risks: Participation in an ethnic rebellion. American Political Science Review, 110(2), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivedi, B. P. (2012). Neuroscience: Hardwired for taste. Nature, 486, S7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wängerud, L., Solevid, M, & Dejerf-Pierre, M. (2019). Moving beyond cateogrical gender in studies of risk aversion and anxiety. Politics & Gender, 15(4), 826–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, I., McCloskey, C., & Earle, I. (2005). Trends in gender differences in accidents mortality: Relationships to changing gender roles and other societal trends. Demographic Research, 13, 415–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolak, J. (2020). Self-confidence and gender gaps in political interest, attention, and efficacy. Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1490–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolak, J., & McDevitt, M. (2011). The roots of the gender gap in political knowledge in adolescence. Political Behavior, 33(3), 505–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vi, C. T., & Obrist, M. (2018). Sour promotes risk-taking: An investigation into the effect of taste on risk-taking behaviour in humans. Scientific Reports, 8, article 7987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Friesen et al. supplementary material

Friesen et al. supplementary material

Download Friesen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.8 MB