People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides

Puryear, C., et al. (2024).

PNAS Nexus, 3(7).

https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244

Abstract

Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This “basic morality bias” is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.

Significance Statement

The United States is witnessing historic levels of political hostility and gridlock. This animosity is partly grounded in misperceptions of opponents’ political beliefs, but we find many Americans overestimate political opponents’ willingness to accept even the most basic moral wrongs. These findings suggest individuals and practitioners working to foster cross-partisan interaction might first correct this basic morality bias. Specifically, we show that learning a single opponent condemns basic moral wrongs increases behavioral engagement with political opponents and decreases dehumanization of the entire political outgroup.

The research is here.

Here are some thoughts:

Political divides in the US are fueled by a surprising misunderstanding: people believe their opponents are okay with terrible things like child pornography or embezzlement. This isn't true, but many people think it is, and this perception makes them dislike and dehumanize the other side. There's good news though - we can fix this misunderstanding. Studies show that simply reminding people that their opponents share basic moral values, like opposing these awful acts, can lead them to be more willing to work together and see each other as human. This approach seems even more effective than just giving people facts about the other side's beliefs. There are still questions about how long this positive effect lasts and if it works outside the US, but correcting this basic morality bias holds promise for bridging the political divide and fostering more productive conversations.

Towards a Social Psychology of Cynicism

Neumann, E., & Zaki, j. (2022, September 13).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gjm8c

Abstract

Cynicism is the attitude that people are primarily motivated by self-interest. It tracks numerous negative outcomes, and yet many people are cynical. To understand this “cynicism paradox,” we review and call for more social psychological work on how cynicism spreads, with implications for how we might slow it down.

The Cynicism Paradox

Out of almost 8,000 respondents from 41 countries, many agree that “powerful people tend to exploit others” or that “kind-hearted people usually suffer losses”. This indicates widespread cynicism, the attitude that people are primarily motivated by self-interest, often accompanied by emotions such as contempt, anger, and distress, and antagonistic interactions with others. What explains such cynicism? Perhaps it reflects a realistic perception of the suffering caused by human self-interest. But workin social psychology regularly demonstrates that attitudes are not always perfect  mirrors of reality.  We will argue  that  people  often  overestimate self-interest,  create  it through their expectations, or overstate their own to not appear naïve. Cynicism rises when people witness self-interest, but social psychology –so far relatively quiet on the topic –can explain why they get trapped in this worldview even when it stops tracking reality.

Cynicism is related, but not reducible to, a lack of trust. Trust is often defined as accepting vulnerability based on positive expectations of others. Generalized trust implies a general tendency to  have  positive  expectations  of  others,  and  shares  with  cynicism  the  tendency  to  judge  the character of a whole group of people. But cynicism is more than reduced positive expectations.It entails a strongly negative view of human nature. The intensity of cynicism’s hostility further differentiates it from mere generalized distrust. Finally, while people can trust and distrust others’ competence,  integrity,  and  predictability,  cynicism  usually  focuses  on  judgments  of  moral character.  This  differentiates  cynicism  from  mere  pessimism,  which  encompasses  any  negative beliefs about the future, moral or non-moral alike. 

The info is here.

Direct applications to psychotherapy.

Bridging Political Divides by Correcting the Basic Morality Bias

Puryear, C., Kubin, E., Schein, et al. 

(2022, January 11).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fk8g6

Abstract

Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues. However, nine studies suggest that we should also focus on a more basic moral divide: the erroneous belief that political opponents lack a fundamental sense of right and wrong. This “basic morality bias” is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large Twitter corpus, and a representative survey of Americans with incentives for accuracy. In the US, both Democrats and Republicans substantially overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant wrongs (e.g., child pornography, embezzlement). Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.

From the General Discussion

These findings provide vital insights into why the United States finds itself burdened by political gridlock, partisanship, and high levels of political dehumanization. It may be difficult to imagine how disagreement over details of political policy can make partisans unwilling to even speak to one another or see each other as equally human. However, it could be that Americans do not see themselves in conflict with an alternative ideology but with opponents who lack a moral compass entirely. Believing others lack this fundamental component of humanity has fueled intergroup conflict throughout history. If the political climate in America continues down this path, then it may not be surprising to see two parties—who believe each other embrace murder and theft—continue to escalate conflict.  

Fortunately, our results unveil a simple intervention with both large and broad effects upon the basic morality bias. Telling others that we oppose wrongs as basic as murder seems like it should provide no new information capable of altering how others see us. This was also supported by a pilot study showing that participants do not expect information about basic moral judgments to generally impact their evaluations of others. However, because the basic morality bias is common in the political domain, assuring opponents that we have even the most minimal moral capacities improves their willingness to engage with us. Most importantly, our results suggest that even just one person who successfully communicates their basic moral values has the potential to make their entire political party seem more moral and human.

The research is here.

False Polarization: Cognitive Mechanisms and Potential Solutions

Fernbach PM, Van Boven L

Current Opinion in Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.005

Abstract

While political polarization in the United States is real, intense and increasing, partisans consistently overestimate its magnitude. This “false polarization” is insidious because it reinforces actual polarization and inhibits compromise. We review empirical research on false polarization and the related phenomenon of negative meta-perceptions, and we propose three cognitive and affective processes that likely contribute to these phenomena: categorical thinking, oversimplification and emotional amplification. Finally, we review several interventions that have shown promise in mitigating these biases. 

From the Solutions Section

Another idea is to encourage citizens to engage in deeper discourse about the issues than is the norm. One way to do this is through a “consensus conference,” where people on opposing sides of issues are brought together along with topic experts to learn and discuss over the course of hours or days, with the goal of coming to an agreement. The depth of analysis cuts against the tendency to oversimplify, and the face-to-face nature diminishes categorical thinking by highlighting individuality. The challenge of consensus conferences is scalability. They are resource intensive. However, a recent study showed that simply telling people about the outcome of a consensus conference can yield some of the beneficial effects.

The amplifying effects of anger can be targeted by emotional reappraisal through the lens of sadness; People who were induced to states of sadness rather than anger exhibited lower polarization and false polarization in the context of Hurricane Katrina and a mass shooting. In another study, induced sadness increased people’s willingness to negotiate and their openness to opponents’ perspectives. Sadness reappraisals are feasible in many challenging contexts involving threat to health and security, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that are readily interpreted as saddening or angering.

The info is here.