Abstract A prominent theory in political psychology contends that individual differences in negativity bias explain political ideology: people who are more sensitive to negative stimuli find solace and comfort in conservative approaches to politics. Using self‐reported measures of negativity bias, the evidence is relatively consistent. Yet, using physiological indicators of the negativity bias, the results are, across the board, inconsistent with the negativity bias argument. Building on recent neuroscience work, we propose and test two innovations. First, unconscious and conscious processes are not necessarily aligned. Therefore, we propose that there are different – conscious and unconscious – paths that could link ideology with the negativity bias. Second, individuals vary in their ability and motivation to down‐regulate arousal and reflect on their emotions. As such, the ideology‐negativity bias may emerge in some individuals but not in others. In two preregistered laboratory studies (US and the Netherlands), we find limited evidence for these claims. In a subsequent registered report, we replicate some inconsistent patterns that emerged in study 1. We confirm that self‐reported social conservatism and implicit social conservatism (measured with an IAT) are positively correlated. We also establish that negativity bias is unrelated to social conservatism (both explicit and implicit). We conclude that negativity bias is most likely not the answer to why people on the left and right differ.