Sensitivity to social norm violation is related to political orientation.

Human behavior is framed by several social structures. In the present study, we focus on two of the most important determinants of social structures: social norms and political orientation. Social norms are implicit models of shared expectations about how people should behave in different social contexts. Although humans are very sensitive to violations in social norms, there are important individual differences in our sensitivity to these violations. The second concept this study focuses on is political orientation that is define by a continuum from left (liberal) to right (conservative). Individual political orientation has been found to be related to various individual traits, such as cognitive style or sensitivity to negative stimuli. Here, we propose to study the relation between sensitivity to social norm violation and political orientation. Participants completed a task presenting scenarios with different degrees of social norm violation and a questionnaire to measure their political opinions on economic and identity issues. Using hierarchical regressions, we show that individual differences in sensitivity to social norm violation are partly explained by political orientation, and more precisely by the identity axis. The more individuals have right-oriented political opinions, the more they are sensitive to social norm violation, even when multiple demographics variables are considered. Our results suggest that political orientation, especially according to identity issues, is a significant factor of individual differences in social norm processing.

Introduction

Social structure guides human behavior through explicit and implicit rules that frame our decisions and our actions. One important determinant that contributes to social structure by facilitating large-scale coordination is social norms [1]—unwritten rules about how people should behave in society. Social norms thus structure our social environment by guiding our own behavior and by framing our expectations of how others should behave in specific situations [2]. On one hand, when social norms are well understood and respected, everyone can more easily predict the course of social interactions, which reduces the uncertainty in our social environment [3]. On the other hand, when social norms are absent or violated, it can increase this uncertainty [1]. The efficiency of social norms as a regulating mechanism is highly dependent on their enforcement: violators will often be punished [4]. Indeed, individuals are generally sensitive to social norm violation—most people are willing to punish social norm transgressors even if it comes at a cost to them [5-8]—and people who contemplate transgressing these norms are aware of these potential retaliations. However, sensitivity to social norm violation can vary across cultures and societies [9, 10] where some have stricter norms (low tolerance to social norm violation) while others may have weaker norms (stronger tolerance to norm violation) [11]. For example, variations in exposition to societal threats is associated to variation in the strength of social norms at the culture level [9]. Similar to inter-cultural differences, there are also individual differences in sensitivity to social norm violation. For example, previous work have shown that one’s sensitivity is affected by the way one perceives the society he/she lives in. Indeed, individuals who think that within their society the range of permissible behavior is narrow versus wide will tend to be more sensitive to social norm violation [10, 12] suggesting that certain characteristics of how individuals perceive their social structure can be related to how they process social norms. Here we propose to investigate the possible relation between individual differences in sensitivity to social norm violation and another key concept related to social structure: political orientation.

There are several ways to conceptualize political orientation, a psychological concept that fosters affinity between individuals and surrounding political discourses and ideologies. Jost and al. (2009) argued that despite the complexity of political views, often a single left (liberal)—right (conservative) continuum, based on two interrelated aspects—advocating versus resisting social change, and rejecting versus accepting inequality—can be a sufficient, useful approximation (see also Graham, Haidt & Nosek, 2009 [13]).

Differences in political orientation has been linked to various individual traits, such as personality [14], moral foundations [13] and cognitive style [15]. According to the influential Motivated Social Cognition theory [15], these individual differences are rooted in three basic psychological needs and motivations, which are managed differently according to political orientation: (1) existential needs that encompass security, safety and comfort, (2) relational needs such as personal or social identification, interpersonal relationships and solidarity with others, and (3) epistemic needs, which refer to cognitive preference for predictability, certainty and cognitive closure (i.e., the desire to eliminate ambiguity) [16]. With the main ideas of preserving status quo and respecting/emphasising social hierarchy, a more right-oriented political orientation has been argued to serve all these needs more directly [17]. For example, in line with the epistemic needs to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity, the more individuals are right-oriented, the more they tend to have a stricter cognitive style, which may help them attain a better sense of cognitive closure [18]. Thus, to fill the need for structure and order (concepts that are related to the basic epistemic needs), right-oriented individuals will prefer conservative ideology, which favors a more rigid social structure that tends to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity through stronger regulations of our behaviors.

In sum, social norms, as well as political ideology, can be perceived as means to guide and structure social behaviour, and both can play an important role in reducing uncertainty and ambiguity. This raises the possibility that how people react to violations in social norms can be related to individual differences in political orientation. The main objective of this study was to assess the relationship between sensitivity to social norm violation and political orientation, while controlling for potential confounding socio-demographic variables (see Analyses for further details). Previous work have looked at links between political orientation and variables such as disgust [19], and sensitivity to negative non-social stimuli [20] and there are theories that suggest that ingroup loyalty, which is a important factor of compliance to social norms [21, 22], is also linked to political orientation [23]. However, there is no previous work to our knowledge that specifically studied the direct link between sensitivity to social norm violation and political orientation. We hypothesised that the more an individual is right-oriented, the more he or she will be sensitive to social norm violations, given that sensitivity helps detect violators and reinforce social norms which in turn favors a more rigid social structure.

Although political orientation has been often tapped on a single left-right continuum, it has been argued that conceptualizing political orientation on more dimensions could lead to a more nuanced understanding of its link to psychological factors [24-26]. Even when political orientation is used as a single continuum, two core aspects are used to describe the differences between left and right: preference for social change versus tradition and preference for equality versus inequality [16, 27]. These two aspects can be mirrored respectively to social and economic dimensions [25], which have been argued to be linked differentially to a wide range of variables [21]. In this regard, we have explored our main question by using a political questionnaire that was conceived to measure identity issues (social dimension) and socioeconomic issues (economic dimension) separately into two axes [28]. The decision to focusing on identity and socioeconomic issues to distinguish between the social and economic dimensions of political orientation was primarily based on the fact that the present study was conducted in the province of Quebec (Canada). First, identity issues have been at the core of Quebec politics throughout its history, and were instrumental for French-Canadians of European descent (historically subordinate in Canada) to acquire political agency in a province where they have always constituted the demographic majority [29]. Second, left-wing socio-democratic economic policies have colored the political environment of the province at least since the Quiet Revolution (Révolution tranquille, 1960–70). For these two reasons, we expected that the chosen axes could be dissociated within our sample—Quebec participants potentially being more left-wing in the socioeconomic axis than in the identity axis. Given that social norms have a significant affective component (violations producing aversive feelings [30]), we predicted that if the two axes could be dissociated, sensitivity to social norm violation would be linked more strongly to the identity axis than the socioeconomic axis, based on the notion that identity issues are more emotionally salient than socioeconomic issues [24, 25].

Methods

Participants

One hundred and ninety-nine French-speaking participants (French being the first language of 196 participants; 145 identifying as women and 54 identifying as men based on a two-alternative forced choice question) aged between 19–54 years (M = 24.33 years, SD = 6.68 years) completed this study. This sample is composed from three recruitment phases that took place between winter 2018 and fall 2019. Participants were recruited at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Université de Montréal in the province of Quebec, Canada. Further descriptive statistics about the participants are presented in Table 1. This study was approved by the Comité d’éthique à la recherche avec des êtres humains (CEREH; Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières) and by the Comité d’éthique de la recherche en éducation et en psychologie (CEREP; Université de Montréal). Before participating, all participants gave their written consent. Participants received a monetary compensation for their participation.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics.

Place of birth		Education level (years)				Occupation			Living environment
Quebec	Other	min	max	mean	sd	Student	Employed	Other	Urban	Rural
177	22	11	30	16.82	2.91	175	21	3	152	47

Stimuli and procedure

Participants had to complete a Social Norm Violation task [10] aimed at measuring individual sensitivity to social norm violation on a computer and answer socio-demographic and political questionnaires. Note that participants also completed another task aimed at measuring social decision-making and costly punishment (Ultimatum game [31]) but that only results regarding the Social Norm Violation task are described here. Questionnaires and tasks were presented on a computer using E-prime 2.0 (Sharpsburg, Psychology Software Tools, Inc.). The order in which participants had to complete the questionnaires and tasks was counterbalanced.

Social norm violation task

Participants completed a Social Norm Violation task developed by Mu et al. (2015) where they had to judge real-life scenarios. Scenarios from the original task were translated from English to French. A total of 34 behaviors (e.g., yelling) were presented in three situations/conditions: appropriate (e.g., at a rock concert), weakly inappropriate (e.g., on the metro) and strongly inappropriate (e.g., in the library) creating 102 scenarios (e.g., Steven is at a rock concert. He is yelling.). The translated original scenarios were first tested in pilot studies with French-speaking university students and six where adjusted to better reflect reality in the province of Quebec. Examples of the scenarios are presented in Table 2. Scenarios were randomly presented to minimize the risk of participants discovering the structure of the experiment (e.g., that each behavior was paired with three different situations). On each trial, participants had to rate the appropriateness of each scenario on a four point scale ranging from 1 (strongly appropriate) to 4 (strongly inappropriate). The task’s timeline is presented in Fig 1. As proposed by Mu et al. (2015), individual sensitivity social norm violation was measured by calculating the percentage of strongly inappropriate scenarios that were rated by the participant as strongly inappropriate.

Table 2

Scenarios example.

5 behaviors with their 3 associate conditions and the French translation.

Appropriate	Strongly inappropriate	Weakly inappropriate	Behavior
Jacob in the bike	Jacob is on the Highway.	Jacob is on the city sidewalk.	Cycling
lane.Jacob est sur la piste cyclable	Jacob est sur l’autoroute	Jacob est sur le trottoir	Il fait du vélo
Amanda is at a Tango lesson.	Amanda is at the art museum.	Amanda is on a subway platform.	Dancing
Amanda est à un cours de Tango	Amanda est au musée d’art	Amanda est sur la plateforme du métro	Elle danse
Thomas is at a bar.	Thomas is at the doctor's office.	Thomas is at the post office.	Flirting
Thomas est dans un bar.	Thomas est au bureau du docteur.	Thomas est au bureau de poste.	Il flirte
Emma is at a wedding.	Emma is at the Doctor’s office.	Emma is on a bus.	Kissing
Emma est à un mariage.	Emma est dans le bureau du docteur.	Emma est dans l’autobus.	Elle embrasse
Chris is at the church.	Chris is at the symphony.	Chris is in the public park.	Praying
Christian est à l’église.	Christian est à un concert symphonique.	Christian est dans un parc public.	Il prie

Fig 1

Example of a trial in the social norm violation task’s.

Political orientation

To assess individual political orientation, participants completed a modified version of the Cald questionnaire [28] (see also [32]). This modified version is meant to assess political opinions using 8 items separated into two political axes: a) socioeconomic (4 items: taxes; globalization; public services and role of the state and business), and b) identity (4 items: right to vote and nationality; fight against delinquency; poverty and foreclosure; and immigration). Each item was presented with different policies associated with a score from 1(left) to 5(right) (e.g., right to vote and nationality item: All foreigners residing in Canada must have the right to vote, regardless of their nationality (1); Only Canadians must have the right to vote; and, with exceptions, we cannot be Canadian without having Canadian parents: we must apply the “blood right” and not “territorial right” (5)). For each item, participants selected the policy they most agreed with. The global score for this questionnaire was obtained by calculating the mean of all eight items resulting in a score from 1 (left) to 5 (right). The scores for each axis was calculated by computing the mean of the four items associated to each axis independently, also resulting in a score from 1 (left) to 5 (right) for each axis.

Analysis

One scenario from the strongly inappropriate condition was removed from the analyses given that no participant rated it as strongly inappropriate. Note that this decision did not affect our results and conclusions. In order to investigate the possible relation between global political orientation measures and sensitivity to social norm violation, we ran a hierarchical regression analysis (α = 0.05) —where the predicted variable was the sensitivity to norm violation—controlling for the possible influence of sociodemographic (education level and gender) and procedure-related (task/questionnaire order of completion) variables. These variables were entered in the first stage of the analysis and global political orientation was entered in the second stage. As described below, in a second step, partial correlations revealed that only the identity axis–and not the socioeconomic axis—was related to sensitivity to social norm violation. A second hierarchical regression was therefore conducted to assess the relation between the identity axis and sensitivity to social norm violation while controlling for possible influences of sociodemographic, procedure-related variables as well as socioeconomic political orientation.

Results

Political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violation

The group’s global political orientation scores, as well as for identity and socioeconomic axes independently, in addition to the mean percentage of scenarios rated as strongly inappropriate are presented in Table 3. Our sample’s mean global political orientation scores are more on the left of the political centre (3.0) (p < .001) which was predictable considering that our sample was in vast majority composed of Quebec university students which have been found to be more left-oriented (see [32] for similar results).

Table 3

Descriptive statistics.

	Mean	Median	SD	Min	Max
General political orientation	2.34	2.38	0.61	1.00	3.75
Socioeconomic axis	2.25	2.25	0.80	1.00	4.25
Identity axis	2.52	2.50	0.69	1.00	4.25
Percentage of scenarios rated as strongly inappropriate	40.69	39.39	18.63	0.00	84.85

Relation between global political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violation

A significant positive correlation was found between global political orientation scores and sensitivity to social norm violation, with right political orientation linked to greater sensitivity (Table 4).

Table 4

Correlations between political orientation scores and sensitivity to social norm violations.

	Percentage of scenarios rated as strongly inappropriate	General political orientation	Socioeconomic axis	Identity axis
Percentage of scenarios rated as strongly inappropriate	---	0.18*	0.15*	0.19**
General political orientation		---	0.78***	0.85***
Socioeconomic axis			---	0.39***
Identity axis				---

*p < 0,05

**p < 0.01

***p < 0.001.

In order to isolate the contribution of global political orientation on scores of sensitivity to social norm violation, a hierarchical regression was performed. The general model, including demographics variables (education level and gender), testing-related variables (order of completion) and our variable of interest (global political orientation), was significant (F(4,194) = 7.11, p < 0.001) and explained 11.00% of the variance in sensitivity to social norm violation. Global political orientation contributed significantly to the model (ΔF(1,194) = 9.50, p = 0.002) and accounted for 4.30% of the variance in the model. Hierarchical regression results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Coefficients of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting sensitivity to social norm violation with general political orientation (n = 199).

						95% CI
Model		Unstandardized β	Standard Error	Standardized β	T	Lower	Upper
H₀	(Intercept)	39.48	8.59		4.60***	22.55	56.42
	Gender	1.58	0.72	0.15	2.20*	0.17	3.00
	Education level	-0.84	0.44	-0.13	-1.92	-1.71	0.02
	Order	3.66	1.12	0.22	3.27**	1.45	5.86
H₁	(Intercept)	25.62	9.53		2.69**	6.81	44.42
	Gender	1.75	0.71	0.17	2.48*	0.35	3.14
	Education level	-0.95	0.43	-0.15	-2.21*	-1.81	-0.10
	Order	3.73	1.09	0.23	3.41***	1.57	5.89
	Global political orientation	6.38	2.07	0.21	3.08**	2.30	10.46

*p < 0,05

**p < 0.01

***p < 0.001.

Multicollinearity was respected as indicated by a variance inflation factors (VIFs) all near to the recommended value of 1 (min: 1.00, max: 1.01). Autocorrelation in the residuals was also respected as expressed by a value of 1.95 for the Durbin-Watson test. The residuals’ mean is 0 and residuals present no problematic value (all value has a cook’s distance <1).

Relation between identity axis and sensitivity to social norm violation

As seen in Table 3, identity and socioeconomic axes were found to be positively correlated and share 15% of variance. Furthermore, as hypothesised, participants in our sample were more left-oriented on the socioeconomic axis than on the identity axis (t(198) = 4.52, p < 0.001).

Hence, partial correlations were conducted for each axis in order to control for covariance of the other axis when exploring the link between each axis and sensitivity to social norm violation. These analyses revealed a significant correlation between the identity axis and sensitivity to norm violation (r(197) = 0.14, p = 0.04), but not for the socioeconomic axis (r(197) = 0.09, p = 0.23).

Since the identity axis was linked with sensitivity to social norm violation, we conducted a second hierarchical regression using identity scores instead of global political orientation scores. For this second regression, socioeconomic scores were added in the first step of the regression with the demographics variables previously mentioned. The general model was significant (F(5,193) = 6.38, p < 0.001) explaining 12.0% of the variance in sensitivity to social norm violation. The Identity axis contributed significantly to the model (ΔF(1,193) = 4.08, p = 0.045) and explained 1.8% of the variance. Hierarchical regression results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

Coefficients of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting sensitivity to social norm violation with identity and socioeconomic axes (n = 199).

						95% CI
Model		Unstandardized β	Standard Error	Standardized β	T	Lower	Upper
H₀	(Intercept)	30.27	9.00		3.37***	12.53	48.01
	Gender	1.77	0.71	0.17	2.50*	0.37	3.16
	Education level	-0.99	0.43	-0.15	-2.28*	-1.85	-0.13
	Order	3.89	1.10	0.24	3.54***	1.72	6.06
	Socioeconomic axis	4.62	1.58	0.20	2.92**	1.50	7.74
H₁	(Intercept)	23.32	9.57		2.44*	4.45	42.19
	Gender	1.82	0.70	0.17	2.59*	0.43	3.21
	Education level	-0.98	0.43	-0.15	-2.29*	-1.83	-0.14
	Order	3.78	1.09	0.23	3.46***	1.62	5.94
	Socioeconomic axis	3.29	1.70	0.14	1.93	-0.07	6.65
	Identity axis	3.94	1.95	0.15	2.01*	0.09	7.79

*p < 0,05

**p < 0.01

***p < 0.001.

Multicollinearity was respected as indicated by a variance inflation factors (VIFs) all near to the recommended value of 1 (min: 1.01, max: 1.21). Autocorrelation in the residuals was also respected as expressed by a value of 1.89 for the Durbin-Watson test. The residuals’ mean is 0 and residuals present no problematic value (all value has a cook’s distance <1).

Discussion

The main goal of the present study was to explore the link between political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violation. Since both right-wing political ideology and sensitivity to social norm violation can be powerful tools to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty in one’s social environment [16, 17, 33, 34], we hypothesised that right political orientation would be positively associated to sensitivity to social norm violation. This hypothesis was confirmed in the present study, even when controlling for education level, and gender.

These results extend to the social domain a large body of evidence that linked political orientation with non-social information processing [17]. Indeed, individual political orientation has been found to be related to specific cognitive processes such as conflict-related anterior cingulate activity [35], perceptual bias [32, 35] and to different cognitive styles [15]. In the current study, participants had to process relatively complex social information contained in real-life scenarios presenting others behaving in various contexts. This type of processing is generally more complex than the tasks or questionnaires used in previous studies on political orientation and information processing. To our knowledge, this is the first study to link political orientation to the processing of social norms.

The present results are also in line with previous studies that have suggested that the more individuals are on the right of the political spectrum, the more they are sensitive to a range of negative stimuli, such as angry faces, negative words or images [20]. Our results, linking right political orientation and sensitivity to norm violation measured using real-life social scenarios, suggest that this relation can be extended to relatively complex negative stimuli related to social interactions and behaviors.

Overall, results from the present study support the Social Motivated Cognitive theory [15, 17], as higher sensitivity to social norm violation could help fulfill the three basic needs and motivations which are proposed to be served more directly by right-wing ideology. First, regarding relational needs, detecting violations more efficiently could help identify individuals that adhere and respect the same internalized norms, which in turn could reinforce the feeling of shared reality and belonging with these individuals [36]. Second, for existential motivations, greater sensitivity to social norm violation could also help fulfill the need for safety and security by giving an impression of control on the environment, in that the better one is at detecting social norm violations, the better one is suited to react to rectify the situation [37]. Finally, in respect to epistemic motivations, greater sensitivity to social norm violation could help reduce uncertainty and ambiguity by reducing the range of possible behaviors one can encounter and helping one choose how to act in the proper dictated manner [3, 34].

The present results also fit within the Moral Foundation theory of political identity [13], which has proposed that right-wing individuals’ moral foundations encompass all five moral intuitions, including Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, Purity/sanctity, Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity, whereas left-oriented individuals endorse and use the two later more. The three morals foundations used more strongly by the right-oriented individuals (Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect and Purity/sanctity) emphasise group binding, loyalty and self-control. The importance given to these foundations might influence or be influenced by decision-making and actions related to social norms. For instance, giving higher importance to in-group binding could bring one to adopt stricter social norms and greater sensitivity could help detect more easily violators—individuals who are potentially not part of one’s own group [33]. In addition, research has shown that social norms can influence loyalty behavior in virtual community where the more people believe in the importance of community loyalty behavior, the more they individually act in accordance with the group’s norms [38]. Finally, individuals giving higher importance to self-control as a desired characteristic for members of their society could be more sensitive to social norm violations as violations could indicate a lack of self-control in others. Indeed, less self-control has been linked with higher social norms violation [39, 40]. Interestingly, it is possible that participants used the three binding foundations to evaluate the appropriateness of the scenarios presented in the Social Norm Violation task. Indeed, some scenarios were linked with ingroup behaviors (ex. Situations with family), respect for authority (ex. Situations with boss) and with purity (ex. Situations including swearing). If this is the case, since right oriented individuals use these foundations more, they could judge violations in these contexts as more inappropriate. However, since we did not measure the Moral Foundations of our participants or directly ask them how they made their decisions, this hypothesis remains to be tested.

A second objective of the present study was to explore whether socioeconomic (where political opinions are grounded on respect to economic structure) and identity (where political opinions are based more on respect to social values [24, 25]) political opinions could be dissociated in our sample mostly composed of individuals born in the province of Quebec. If so, we also wanted to investigate whether sensitivity to social norm violation would be linked more strongly to the identity axis than to the socioeconomic axis. As hypothesised, the two axes were moderately correlated and the mean of the socioeconomic axis scores was slightly but significantly more to the left than scores on the identity axis. More importantly, only the identity axis was linked to sensitivity in social norm violation when controlling for the socioeconomic axis with a partial correlation. Which supports the assumption that social norms, as measured in the present study, are more related to in-group identity and loyalty issues than socioeconomic issues. However, although the results from the hierarchical regressions also support a greater role of the identity axis, compared to the socioeconomic axis in the relation between political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violation, observed standardized betas, a measure of effect size, for the two axes in this analysis are quite similar. This indicates that sociodemographic variables may be important to consider in further studies to better understand the differential link of each political axis, as observed in this study.

It is important to mention that our sample was mainly composed of university students of French-Canadian lineage. These two demographics particularities make the results difficult to generalize outside the educated French-Canadian majority population of the province of Quebec. However, the relative homogeneity of our sample allowed us to explore possible differences between different dimensions of political orientation. Indeed, whereas some propose that political orientation can be conceptualized as a single left-right continuum [13, 16], we found that within our educated French-speaking Quebec sample, political orientation related to socioeconomic and identity issues could be distinguished, allowing us to describe more precisely how social norms sensitivity was related to the identity axis of political orientation while not with the socioeconomic axis in the present study. Such results add to mounting evidence that social and economic dimensions of political orientation are linked differently to multiple variables [21].

This research opens different possibilities in the field of social norms processing by showing that sensitivity to social norm violation can be linked to political orientation and possibly more to the identity axis. Given that our sample focused on a relatively homogeneous group, it will be important to examine whether these findings can be observed in different socio-demographic groups and political realities. Also, as this research used a correlational design, no causality can be inferred, and further research will be required to investigate the direction of the observed relation between social norm violation and political orientation when observed. Results presented here focussed on general sensitivity to social norm violation. However, it would also be interesting to study if different types of social norm violations have stronger relationships with political orientation than others.

All data underlying the findings.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

Political orientation questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-22085

Sensitivity to social norm violation is related to political orientation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Désilets,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I would like to see a revision of this manuscript. You have two reviews and both find some merit in the manuscript. In your revision I would like you to address the following concerns.

First, as suggested by R2, can you more clearly delineate the contribution of this manuscript to the literature? As that reviewer notes, there are quite a few studies that demonstrate the effect of political ideology on in and out-group members.

Second, can you further develop the effect sizes of your treatments?  The regressions (particularly Tables 4 and 5) detail the coefficients. In your discussions you are comfortable talking about statistical significance and explained variance. But less clear to me (and to R1) is what does this mean substantively? Hierarchical regressions can sometimes be difficult to decipher, so help me out here.

Third, you might consider R1’s suggestion of a second study, but I am not keen on asking for an additional study. It would be useful, however, to note why R1’s concern is not justified given the current study.

I look forward to a revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 18 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rick K. Wilson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The introduction is well written, clearly spells out the hypothesis, and the rational behind the main hypothesis.

I would like to see the results of the analyses without the 1 item removed from the social norm violation scale in a supplemental file or footnote.

I am not convinced by the data that socioeconomic conservatism is unrelated/or less related to norm violation compared to identity conservatism. In the regression that tests this, the effect of the identity axis is marginal (p = .045). The effect sizes (standardized beta) for both axes are different by only .01 (.15 vs .14). This is not enough of an effect for me to be confortable with the conclusions made in this paper based on only one study alone.

If would like to see another study attached to this paper that can replicate the identity vs. socioeconomic axes effect. I am not always against 1 off studies, but the effects here are not strong enough for me to feel comfortable concluding that the identity axis of ideology is more related to sensitivity to norm violation than the socioeconomic axis.

Reviewer #2: This paper presents a solid analysis of the question posed: is political ideology associated with social norm violation sensitivity. I have some questions as to how novel a question this is to pose. Prior work has documented a link between political foundations and disgust sensitivity (Brenner & Inbar, 2015) and between social norm violations and dehumanization and disgust (Fincher & Tetlock, 2016) so it seems straightforward to link the two. Further Moral Foundations, which the authors discuss, documents ingroup/loyalty as one of the core foundations for conservatives. It’s hard to imagine within the realms of current theory on groups and social norms, a group in which great ingroup loyalty wouldn’t predict greater outrage at norm violations to that ingroup. In addition, the general link between conservatives and traditional values suggests some element of preventing or being angered by those who violate norms (e.g. by being gay) such that it seems plausible that greater norm sensitivity could cause one to become more conservative politically. That said, though many papers seem to strongly suggest a positive association between political conservatism and social norm violation sensitivity, I know of no paper that directly documents this relationship and the authors do a good job in doing so.

I would suggest including the table of norm violation stimuli in the paper rather than in the supplement. I also think it could be quite interesting to do some exploratory coding of which violations have stronger relationships with the predictor variables than others. I think it would be good to have some discussion of causality in the general discussion, especially to discuss ways in which perceptions of norm violations may lead to changes in political orientation. The authors do a good job of not making causal claims but it would be useful to engage with this further. I’m also a bit confused about the large order effect in the paper – perhaps the authors could explain that further to help readers make sense of it.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

25 Sep 2020

Editorial comments

E.1 First, as suggested by R2, can you more clearly delineate the contribution of this manuscript to the literature? As that reviewer notes, there are quite a few studies that demonstrate the effect of political ideology on in and out-group members.

We added precision in the introduction of the manuscript highlighting that previous work mainly looked at indirect links between political orientation and social norm sensitivity. Although previous studies have demonstrated a link between political orientation and in/out-group members, the link between political orientation and social norm sensitivity per se has never been, to our knowledge, explored before this study. See p.4

Previous work have looked at links between political orientation and variables such as disgust [19], and sensitivity to negative non-social stimuli [20] and there are theories that suggest that ingroup loyalty, which is a important factor of compliance to social norms [21, 22], is also linked to political orientation [23]. However, there is no previous work to our knowledge that specifically studied the direct link between sensitivity to social norm violation and political orientation.

E.2 Second, can you further develop the effect sizes of your treatments? The regressions (particularly Tables 4 and 5) detail the coefficients. In your discussions you are comfortable talking about statistical significance and explained variance. But less clear to me (and to R1) is what does this mean substantively? Hierarchical regressions can sometimes be difficult to decipher, so help me out here.

Both standardized and unstandardized coefficients (or betas) can be used as effect size for IV in a hierarchical regression. Unstandardized coefficients indicate how much the variable changes when the IV changes by 1 unit. Standardized coefficients have mainly the same goal, but they put effects on a common scale using standard deviation allowing to compare effect size between IV. There is no scale indicating if a beta is small, large or medium. We can only say if an effect is bigger than another according to the standardized beta.

There is no clear prescription about what must be reported in a publication. Here, we chose to put coefficients in a table to present in a clearer way all coefficient, standardized and unstandardized. We do not mention explicitly the coefficients in the text because they are already presented in the table.

Because our main hypothesis relates to the relation between political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violations (and not how this link is bigger or smaller than with other possible variables), we propose to keep our result and discussion mainly centered around % of variance explained which we think should help readers evaluate the “strength” of this relation.

When discussing our results regarding socio-economic and identity axes of political orientation, we now mention that although only the relation between identity axis and sensitivity is significant, since the standardized betas are very close (a measure of effect size), these results have to be considered with caution (see R1.2).

More importantly, only the identity axis was linked to sensitivity in social norm violation when controlling for the socioeconomic axis with a partial correlation. Which supports the assumption that social norms, as measured in the present study, are more related to in-group identity and loyalty issues than socioeconomic issues. However, although the results from the hierarchical regressions also support a greater role of the identity axis, compared to the socioeconomic axis in the relation between political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violation, observed standardized betas, a measure of effect size, for the two axes in this analysis are quite similar. This indicates that sociodemographic variables may be important to consider in further studies to better understand the differential link of each political axis, as observed in this study.

E.3 Third, you might consider R1’s suggestion of a second study, but I am not keen on asking for an additional study. It would be useful, however, to note why R1’s concern is not justified given the current study.

Please see answer to comment R1.3.

Reviewer #1: The introduction is well written, clearly spells out the hypothesis, and the rational behind the main hypothesis.

Thank you

R1.1 I would like to see the results of the analyses without the 1 item removed from the social norm violation scale in a supplemental file or footnote.

We reran all analyses with the item included. Our conclusions remain the same as the results are very similar (i.e., changes in values but not in significance vs. no significance). See the results with the item presented at the end of our responses to reviewers. Highlighted in yellow are the differences between these analyses and the ones presented in the text. We added the information that our choice to remove this problematic item did not qualitatively change our results or conclusions in the text. See p. 10

One scenario from the strongly inappropriate condition was removed from the analyses given that no participant rated it as strongly inappropriate. Note that this decision did not affect our results and conclusions.

R1.2 I am not convinced by the data that socioeconomic conservatism is unrelated/or less related to norm violation compared to identity conservatism. In the regression that tests this, the effect of the identity axis is marginal (p = .045). The effect sizes (standardized beta) for both axes are different by only .01 (.15 vs .14). This is not enough of an effect for me to be confortable with the conclusions made in this paper based on only one study alone.

Although the relation between both axes and sensitivity to social norm violation is clearer when looking at our partial correlations results, we agree that the hierarchical regression results are less clear. We added some precision in the discussion about theses differences. See E.2 for more explanations and p.19-20-21 for modifications

More importantly, only the identity axis was linked to sensitivity in social norm violation when controlling for the socioeconomic axis with a partial correlation. Which supports the assumption that social norms, as measured in the present study, are more related to in-group identity and loyalty issues than socioeconomic issues. However, although the results from the hierarchical regressions also support a greater role of the identity axis, compared to the socioeconomic axis in the relation between political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violation, observed standardized betas, a measure of effect size, for the two axes in this analysis are quite similar. This indicates that sociodemographic variables may be important to consider in further studies to better understand the differential link of each political axis, as observed in this study.

[…]

This research opens different possibilities in the field of social norms processing by showing that sensitivity to social norm violation can be linked to political orientation and possibly more to the identity axis.

R1.3 If would like to see another study attached to this paper that can replicate the identity vs. socioeconomic axes effect. I am not always against 1 off studies, but the effects here are not strong enough for me to feel comfortable concluding that the identity axis of ideology is more related to sensitivity to norm violation than the socioeconomic axis.

Since our primary goal was to assess the link between political orientation and social norm sensitivity, we consider that our results are strong enough to support our conclusion about the main question presented in the paper. We agree that a second study looking into the specific relation between socioeconomic vs. identity axis and sensitivity to social norm violation would greatly benefit from a follow-up study. However, as mentioned in the manuscript, since this objective is only secondary, we decided not to run a replication study at this time, which would have further been complicated by the pandemic. We modified the discussion section to highlight that results about the different axes need to be considered with caution and that future work is necessary to confirm this result. See p. 20

However, although the results from the hierarchical regressions also support a greater role of the identity axis, compared to the socioeconomic axis in the relation between political orientation and sensitivity to social norm violation, observed standardized betas, a measure of effect size, for the two axes in this analysis are quite similar. This indicates that sociodemographic variables may be important to consider in further studies to better understand the differential link of each political axis, as observed in this study.

Reviewer #2: This paper presents a solid analysis of the question posed: is political ideology associated with social norm violation sensitivity.

R2.1 I have some questions as to how novel a question this is to pose. Prior work has documented a link between political foundations and disgust sensitivity (Brenner & Inbar, 2015) and between social norm violations and dehumanization and disgust (Fincher & Tetlock, 2016) so it seems straightforward to link the two. Further Moral Foundations, which the authors discuss, documents ingroup/loyalty as one of the core foundations for conservatives. It’s hard to imagine within the realms of current theory on groups and social norms, a group in which great ingroup loyalty wouldn’t predict greater outrage at norm violations to that ingroup. In addition, the general link between conservatives and traditional values suggests some element of preventing or being angered by those who violate norms (e.g. by being gay) such that it seems plausible that greater norm sensitivity could cause one to become more conservative politically. That said, though many papers seem to strongly suggest a positive association between political conservatism and social norm violation sensitivity, I know of no paper that directly documents this relationship and the authors do a good job in doing so.

Some of these considerations were already mentioned in the discussion, but we agree that the novelty of this study was not put forward in the introduction of the paper. Therefore, we added some precisions in the introduction based on the references the reviewer suggested in order to better show the novelty of our study in relation to previous studies. See p.4

Previous work have looked at links between political orientation and variables such as disgust [19], and sensitivity to negative non-social stimuli [20] and there are theories that suggest that ingroup loyalty, which is a important factor of compliance to social norms [21, 22], is also linked to political orientation [23]. However, there is no previous work to our knowledge that specifically studied the direct link between sensitivity to social norm violation and political orientation.

R2.2 I would suggest including the table of norm violation stimuli in the paper rather than in the supplement.

As suggested, the table is now included in the manuscript. See p. 9

R2.3 I also think it could be quite interesting to do some exploratory coding of which violations have stronger relationships with the predictor variables than others.

We agree that it would be quite interesting to explore the link between specific scenarios or “types” of scenarios and political orientation. However, our paradigm is not optimized for this. Indeed, as each scenario is rated on a scale from 1 to 4, there is very little variance in the answers within our sample which greatly hinders the use (and validity) of correlation analysis at the scenario level. However, we added this suggestion to the future studies at the end of the discussion. See p.21

Results presented here focussed on general sensitivity to social norm violation. However, it would also be interesting to study if different types of social norm violations have stronger relationships with political orientation than others.

R2.4 I think it would be good to have some discussion of causality in the general discussion, especially to discuss ways in which perceptions of norm violations may lead to changes in political orientation. The authors do a good job of not making causal claims but it would be useful to engage with this further.

It is difficult to assess causality when it comes to political orientation. We think that it is unclear if it is sensitivity to social norm violations or political orientation which has an influence on the other variable. Even if the causality is an important theoretical (and practical) question, the design used in this study does not allow us to measure causality evidence, as is the case with the majority of studies on political orientation. Therefore, we are not comfortable engaging in a discussion based on untested hypothesis.

This being said, Hibbing et al. (2014) and Inbar et al. (2009) argue that political orientation could be influenced by negative bias (définir en deux mots et si possible en parlant de sensibilité) more than the other way based on a longitudinal study in which there was correlations between childhood temperament and adult political beliefs and some literature suggesting that changes in the negative features of an environment or negative events such as terrorist attacks make people more conservative. Following this line of thinking, one could think that our political orientation could be influenced by our sensitivity to social norm violation but we prefer not to discuss this in the article considering that our correlational design did not allow for testing causality.

R2.5 I’m also a bit confused about the large order effect in the paper – perhaps the authors could explain that further to help readers make sense of it.

The order effect is indeed a surprising result. It seems that participants became less sensitive with time: sensitivity seemed to diminish as a function of how “late” in the experimental session the social norm violation task was completed. We did not want to emphasise this result in the manuscript because we think that it is not related to our main question. However, if you consider that this information is essential to the paper, we will add it with pleasure.

Supplementary analysis

Table 3. Correlations between political orientation scores and sensitivity to social norm violations

Percentage of scenarios rated as strongly inappropriate General political orientation Socioeconomic axis Identity axis

Percentage of scenarios rated as strongly inappropriate --- 0.18* 0.15* 0.19**

General political orientation --- 0.78*** 0.85***

Socioeconomic axis --- 0.39***

Identity axis ---

In order to isolate the contribution of global political orientation on scores of sensitivity to social norm violation, a hierarchical regression was performed. The general model, including demographics variables (education level and gender), testing-related variables (order of completion) and our variable of interest (global political orientation), was significant (F(4,194) = 7.18, p < 0.001) and explained 11.10% of the variance in sensitivity to social norm violation. Global political orientation contributed significantly to the model (ΔF(1,194) = 9.50, p = 0.002) and accounted for 4.30% of the variance in the model. Hierarchical regression results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Coefficients of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting sensitivity to social norm violation with general political orientation (n=199)

95% CI

Model Unstandardized β Standard Error Standardized β t Lower Upper

H₀ (Intercept) 38.21 8.33 4.59*** 21.77 54.64

Gender 1.55 0.70 0.15 2.22* 0.17 2.92

Education level -0.82 0.43 -0.13 -1.92 -1.66 0.02

Order 3.58 1.09 0.23 3.30** 1.44 5.73

H₁ (Intercept) 24.74 9.25 2.67** 6.49 43.00

Gender 1.71 0.69 0.17 2.49* 0.36 3.06

Education level -0.93 0.42 -0.15 -2.21* -1.75 -0.10

Order 3.66 1.06 0.23 3.44*** 1.56 5.75

Global political orientation 6.19 2.01 0.21 3.08** 2.23 10.15

*p < 0,05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Hence, partial correlations were conducted for each axis in order to control for covariance of the other axis when exploring the link between each axis and sensitivity to social norm violation. These analyses revealed a significant correlation between the identity axis and sensitivity to norm violation (r(197) = 0.15, p = 0.04), but not for the socioeconomic axis (r(197) = 0.08, p = 0.24).

Since the identity axis was linked with sensitivity to social norm violation, we conducted a second hierarchical regression using identity scores instead of global political orientation scores. For this second regression, socioeconomic scores were added in the first step of the regression with the demographics variables previously mentioned. The general model was significant (F(5,193) = 6.43, p < 0.001) explaining 12.0% of the variance in sensitivity to social norm violation. The Identity axis contributed significantly to the model (ΔF(1,193) = 4.18, p = 0.042) and explained 1.9% of the variance. Hierarchical regression results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Coefficients of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting sensitivity to social norm violation with identity and socioeconomic axes (n=199)

95% CI

Model Unstandardized β Standard Error Standardized β t Lower Upper

H₀ (Intercept) 29.31 8.73 3.37*** 12.09 46.54

Gender 1.73 0.69 0.17 2.51* 0.37 3.08

Education level -0.96 0.42 -0.15 -2.28* -1.79 -0.13

Order 3.81 1.07 0.24 3.57*** 1.71 5.92

Socioeconomic axis 4.46 1.54 0.20 2.90** 1.43 7.49

H₁ (Intercept) 22.48 9.29 2.42* 4.17 40.79

Gender 1.78 0.68 0.18 2.61* 0.43 3.12

Education level -0.95 0.42 -0.15 -2.28* -1.78 -0.13

Order 3.70 1.06 0.23 3.49*** 1.61 5.79

Socioeconomic axis 3.15 1.65 0.14 1.91 -0.11 6.41

Identity axis 3.88 1.90 0.15 2.01* 0.14 7.61

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

13 Nov 2020

Sensitivity to social norm violation is related to political orientation

PONE-D-20-22085R1

Dear Dr. Désilets,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Thank you for your responsiveness to the reviewers and to my own concerns. I agree with R2 that the revision is nicely crafted.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rick K. Wilson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Review Comments to the Author: I appreciate all the work the authors did on this revision. I have no further comments on changes to be made. Great job!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

18 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-22085R1

Sensitivity to social norm violation is related to political orientation

Dear Dr. Désilets:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rick K. Wilson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE