Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans' support for partisan violence

Three roots of online toxicity: disembodiment, accountability, and disinhibition

Online communication is central to modern social life, yet it is often linked to toxic manifestations and reduced well-being. How and why online communication enables these toxic social effects remains unanswered. In this opinion, we propose three roots of online toxicity: disembodiment, limited accountability, and disinhibition. We suggest that virtual disembodiment results in a chain of psychological states primed for deleterious social interaction. Drawing from differences between face-to-face and online interactions, the framework highlights and addresses the fundamental problems that result in impaired communication between individuals and explicates its effects on social toxicity online.

Ambivalent attitudes promote support for extreme political actions

Political extremism varies across people and contexts, but which beliefs will a person support through extreme actions? We propose that ambivalent attitudes, despite reducing normative political actions like voting, increase support for extreme political actions. We demonstrate this hypothesized reversal using dozens of measures across six studies (N = 13,055). The effect was robust to relevant covariates and numerous methodological variations and was magnified when people's attitudinal or ideological positions were more polarized. It appears to occur because being conflicted about political issues can feel psychologically uncomfortable, making extreme actions more appealing. Notably, this emerged when people thought ambivalence was justified, whereas leading them to consider ambivalence unjustified suppressed the effect, suggesting that ambivalent people are coping with but not necessarily trying to reduce their ambivalence. These results highlight the interplay of affective and cognitive influences in extreme behavior, showing that beliefs people feel justifiably conflicted about can promote extremism.

Resolving selfish and spiteful interdependent conflict

Interdependence occurs when individuals have a stake in the success or failure of others, such that the outcomes experienced by one individual also generate costs or benefits for others. Discussion on this topic has typically focused on positive interdependence (where gains for one individual result in gains for another) and on the consequences for cooperation. However, interdependence can also be negative (where gains for one individual result in losses for another), which can spark conflict. In this article, we explain when negative interdependence is likely to arise and, crucially, the role played by (mis)perception in shaping an individual's understanding of their interdependent relationships. We argue that, owing to the difficulty in accurately perceiving interdependence with others, individuals might often be mistaken about the stake they hold in each other's outcomes, which can spark needless, resolvable forms of conflict. We then discuss when and how reducing misperceptions can help to resolve such conflicts. We argue that a key mechanism for resolving interdependent conflict, along with better sources of exogenous information, is to reduce reliance on heuristics such as stereotypes when assessing the nature of our interdependent relationships.

Updating the identity-based model of belief: From false belief to the spread of misinformation

The spread of misinformation threatens democratic societies, hampering informed decision-making. Partisan identity biases perceptions of reality, promoting false beliefs. The Identity-based Model of Political Belief explains how social identity shapes information processing and contributes to misinformation. According to this model, social identity goals can override accuracy goals, leading to belief alignment with party members rather than facts. We propose an extended version of this model that incorporates the role of informational context in misinformation belief and sharing. Partisanship involves cognitive and motivational aspects that shape party members' beliefs and actions. This includes whether they seek further evidence, where they seek that evidence, and which sources they trust. Understanding the interplay between social identity and accuracy is crucial in addressing misinformation.

Improving intergroup relations with meta-perception correction interventions

We explore meta-perceptions (i.e., what we think others think about reality), their impact on intergroup conflict, and the interventions correcting these often-erroneous perceptions. We introduce a two (direct or indirect) by two (with or without framing) framework classifying these interventions, and we critically assess the benefits and constraints of these approaches.

Factual corrections: Concerns and current evidence

Factual corrections that target misinformation improve belief accuracy. They do so across a wide variety of countries, political beliefs and demographic characteristics. Instances of backfire, wherein exposure to corrections reduce accuracy, are exceedingly rare and may be an artifact of research design. The evidence regarding other common concerns is mixed. While the effects on corrections on belief are not permanent, they are not entirely ephemeral, either. With some exceptions, corrections mostly only affect belief accuracy, with minor to nonexistent influence on downstream attitudes and behaviors. While corrections are not unpopular among the public, limited available evidence suggests that those who see misinformation are exceedingly unlikely to see relevant corrections.

Partisan animosity through the lens of blame: Partisan animosity can be reduced by a historicist thinking intervention

Partisan animosity has been on the rise in America. Partisan animosity involves blame, wherein political partisans blame outparty members for their beliefs and actions. Here, we examine whether a historicist thinking intervention-drawn from research on blame mitigation-can reduce partisan animosity. The intervention consisted of three components: (1) a narrative about the idiosyncratic development of one political opponent paired with (2) a message about how unique life experiences shape everyone's political beliefs and (3) a suggestion that outparty members can be changed by future formative experiences. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the intervention reduced cold feelings-measured via Feeling Thermometer-towards the outparty for both Democrats and Republicans. Experiments 3 and 4 focused on more specific emotional changes. Experiment 3 showed that, for Democrats, the intervention increased compassion. Experiment 4 showed that, for Republicans, the intervention reduced disgust, disapproval, anger, and contempt, but had no impact on compassion. For Democrats, but not for Republicans, reductions in animosity were mediated by reduced perceptions of control of self-formation, the mediator identified in prior work on historicist thinking and blame mitigation.

Intergroup conflict as contest and disease

Intergroup conflict has been conceptualized as a strategic interaction (conflict-as-contest) and separately as a pathological condition (conflict-as-disease). We highlight how insights and tools from the former perspective can potentially inform the latter. Harnessing the science of strategic decision-making can facilitate the development of novel approaches for mitigating intergroup conflict.

Meta-perception and misinformation

Research on political misperceptions is flourishing across disciplines. Literature on misinformation susceptibility and political group meta-perceptions have arisen independently, both seeking to understand how inaccurate social beliefs of the first and second order respectively contribute to political polarization. Here we review these literatures and argue for greater integration. We highlight four domains where these two literatures intersect: how inaccurate group meta-perceptions may increase misinformation susceptibility, how misinformation may itself convey inaccurate second-order information, how second-order perceptions of misinformation belief may increase misinformation susceptibility, and how reputational concerns may affect misinformation engagement. Our hope is to illuminate fruitful avenues of future research and inspire scholars of political misperceptions to pursue unified theoretical models of how misperceptions drive negative political outcomes.

Generically partisan: Polarization in political communication

American political parties continue to grow more polarized, but the extent of ideological polarization among the public is much less than the extent of perceived polarization (what the ideological gap is believed to be). Perceived polarization is concerning because of its link to interparty hostility, but it remains unclear what drives this phenomenon. We propose that a tendency for individuals to form broad generalizations about groups on the basis of inconsistent evidence may be partly responsible. We study this tendency by measuring the interpretation, endorsement, and recall of category-referring statements, also known as generics (e.g., "Democrats favor affirmative action"). In study 1 (n = 417), perceived polarization was substantially greater than actual polarization. Further, participants endorsed generics as long as they were true more often of the target party (e.g., Democrats favor affirmative action) than of the opposing party (e.g., Republicans favor affirmative action), even when they believed such statements to be true for well below 50% of the relevant party. Study 2 (n = 928) found that upon receiving information from political elites, people tended to recall these statements as generic, regardless of whether the original statement was generic or not. Study 3 (n = 422) found that generic statements regarding new political information led to polarized judgments and did so more than nongeneric statements. Altogether, the data indicate a tendency toward holding mental representations of political claims that exaggerate party differences. These findings suggest that the use of generic language, common in everyday speech, enables inferential errors that exacerbate perceived polarization.

The Way They See Us: Examining the Content, Accuracy, and Bias of Metaperceptions Held by Syrian Refugees About the Communities That Host Them

Discourse about people seeking refuge from conflict varies considerably. To understand what components of this discourse reach refugees the most, we examined refugees' perceptions of how their host communities perceive them (i.e., intergroup metaperceptions). We sampled refugees who fled Syria to Jordan, Lebanon, Germany, and the Netherlands. Focus groups with 102 Syrian refugees revealed that the most prevalent metaperception discussed by refugees was that they thought their host communities saw them as threatening (Study 1). Surveys with 1,360 Syrian refugees and 1,441 members of the host communities (Study 2) found that refugees' metaperceptions tracked the perceptions held by their host communities (i.e., they were accurate), but there was also a significant mean difference, indicating that they were positively biased. Analyses further tested the roles of evaluative concern and group salience on metaperception accuracy, as well as differences in accuracy and bias across country and perception domain.

Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding

Around the world, citizens are voting away the democracies they claim to cherish. Here we present evidence that this behaviour is driven in part by the belief that their opponents will undermine democracy first. In an observational study (N = 1,973), we find that US partisans are willing to subvert democratic norms to the extent that they believe opposing partisans are willing to do the same. In experimental studies (N = 2,543, N = 1,848), we revealed to partisans that their opponents are more committed to democratic norms than they think. As a result, the partisans became more committed to upholding democratic norms themselves and less willing to vote for candidates who break these norms. These findings suggest that aspiring autocrats may instigate democratic backsliding by accusing their opponents of subverting democracy and that we can foster democratic stability by informing partisans about the other side's commitment to democracy.

Correcting misperceptions of out-partisans decreases American legislators' support for undemocratic practices

There is substantial concern about democratic backsliding in the United States. Evidence includes notably high levels of animosity toward out-partisans and support for undemocratic practices (SUP) among the general public. Much less is known, however, about the views of elected officials-even though they influence democratic outcomes more directly. In a survey experiment conducted with state legislators (N = 534), we show that these officials exhibit less animosity toward the other party, less SUP, and less support for partisan violence (SPV) than the general public. However, legislators vastly overestimate the levels of animosity, SUP, and SPV among voters from the other party (though not among voters from their own party). Further, those legislators randomly assigned to receive accurate information about the views of voters from the other party reported significantly lower SUP and marginally significantly lower partisan animosity toward the other party. This suggests that legislators' democratic attitudes are causally linked to their perceptions of other-party voters' democratic attitudes. Our findings highlight the importance of ensuring that office holders have access to reliable information about voters from both parties.

Misperceptions about out-partisans' democratic values may erode democracy

Two studies (one preregistered) of Americans (N = 2200) drawn from a nationally representative panel show that both Democrats and Republicans personally value core democratic characteristics, such as free and fair elections, but severely underestimate opposing party members' support for those same characteristics. Democrats estimate that the average Democrat values democratic characteristics 56% (in Study 1) and 77% (in Study 2) more than the average Republican. In a mirror image, Republicans estimate that the average Republican values democratic characteristics 82% (in Study 1) and 88% (in Study 2) more than the average Democrat. In turn, the tendency to believe that political ingroup members value democratic characteristics more than political outgroup members is associated with support for anti-democratic practices, especially among Republicans. Results suggest biased and inaccurate intergroup perceptions may contribute to democratic erosion in the United States.

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity

Rising partisan animosity is associated with a reduction in support for democracy and an increase in support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework to capture three levels of intervention-thoughts (correcting misconceptions and highlighting commonalities), relationships (building dialogue skills and fostering positive contact) and institutions (changing public discourse and transforming political structures)-and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects and real-world interventions led by practitioners in non-profit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.

I hate you when I am anxious: Anxiety during the COVID-19 epidemic and ideological hostility

Most previous studies that examined the effect of anxiety on hostility towards a distinct group have focused on cases in which we hate those we are afraid of. The current study, on the other hand, examines the relationship between anxiety in one domain and hostility towards a distinct group that is not the source of that anxiety. We focus here on symptoms of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic, which have become increasingly frequent, and show that the implications of such mental difficulties are far-reaching, posing a threat to relationships between ideological groups. In two studies conducted in both Israel and the United States, we found that high levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 epidemic are associated with higher levels of hatred towards ordinary people from the respective political outgroups, lower levels of willingness to sustain interpersonal relations with these people (i.e., greater social distancing), and greater willingness to socially exclude them. This relationship was mediated by the perception of threat posed by the political outgroup. This study is the first to show that mental difficulty driven by an external threat can be a fundamental factor that explains levels of intergroup hostility.

Cognitive-motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts

Healthy democratic polities feature competing visions of a good society but also require some level of cooperation and institutional trust. Democracy is at risk when citizens become so polarized that an 'us versus them' mentality dominates. Despite a vast multidisciplinary literature, no coherent conceptual framework of the microlevel dynamics that increase or decrease polarization has been presented. In this Review, we provide a conceptual framework to integrate scientific knowledge about cognitive-motivational mechanisms that influence political polarization and the social-communicative contexts in which they are enacted. Ego-justifying and group-justifying motives lead individuals to defend their own pre-existing beliefs and those of their in-group, respectively. However, a distinct class of system-justifying motives contributes to asymmetric forms of polarization. Whereas conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change. These cognitive-motivational mechanisms interact with social influence processes linked to communication source, message and channel factors, all of which might contribute to increased or decreased polarization. We conclude with a discussion of unanswered questions and ways in which our framework can be extended to the study of culture and institutions.

Intervention Tournaments: An Overview of Concept, Design, and Implementation

A large portion of research in the social sciences is devoted to using interventions to combat societal and social problems, such as prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict. However, these interventions are often developed using the theories and/or intuitions of the individuals who developed them and evaluated in isolation without comparing their efficacy with other interventions. Here, we make the case for an experimental design that addresses such issues: an intervention tournament-that is, a study that compares several different interventions against a single control and uses the same standardized outcome measures during assessment and participants drawn from the same population. We begin by highlighting the utility of intervention tournaments as an approach that complements other, more commonly used approaches to addressing societal issues. We then describe various approaches to intervention tournaments, which include crowdsourced, curated, and in-house-developed intervention tournaments, and their unique characteristics. Finally, we discuss practical recommendations and key design insights for conducting such research, given the existing literature. These include considerations of intervention-tournament deployment, characteristics of included interventions, statistical analysis and reporting, study design, longitudinal and underlying psychological mechanism assessment, and theoretical ramifications.