The general fault in our fault lines.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
05
09
2020
accepted:
05
03
2021
pubmed:
24
4
2021
medline:
10
11
2021
entrez:
23
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33888880
doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x
pii: 10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1369-1380Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UP_A060_1103
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00005/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Méndez, E., Gómez, Á. & Tropp, L. R. When meta-perceptions are affected by intergroup processes. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 7, 237–250 (2007).
Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L. O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 14864–14872 (2020).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001263117
O’Brien, T. C., Leidner, B. & Tropp, L. R. Are they for us or against us? How intergroup meta-perceptions shape foreign policy attitudes. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21, 941–961 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/1368430216684645
Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R. & Judd, C. M. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. A 10, 145–158 (2015).
doi: 10.1177/1745691615569849
Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 29, 222–244 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/17457289.2018.1465061
Nyhan, B. Facts and myths about misperceptions. J. Econ. Perspect. 34, 220–236 (2020).
doi: 10.1257/jep.34.3.220
Shi, F., Teplitskiy, M., Duede, E. & Evans, J. A. The wisdom of polarized crowds. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 329–336 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6
Shapiro, J. M. & Taddy, N. M. Measuring Polarization in High-Dimensional Data: Method and Application to Congressional Speech. NBER Working Paper 22423 https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/politext.pdf (Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2015).
Luguri, J. B. & Napier, J. L. Of two minds: the interactive effect of construal level and identity on political polarization. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 972–977 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.06.002
Schaeffer, K. Far more Americans see ‘very strong’ partisan conflicts now than in the last two presidential election years. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/04/far-more-americans-see-very-strong-partisan-conflicts-now-than-in-the-last-two-presidential-election-years/ (4 March 2020).
Duro, J. & Teixidó-Figueras, J. World polarization in carbon emissions, potential conflict and groups: an updated revision. Energy Policy 74, 425–432 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.020
Wojcieszak, M. & Price, V. What underlies the false consensus effect? How personal opinion and disagreement affect perception of public opinion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 21, 25–46 (2009).
doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edp001
Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4
Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J. & O’Connell, G. B. How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75, 917–937 (1998).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Polit. Psychol. 38, 127–150 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/pops.12394
Finchilescu, G. Intergroup anxiety in interracial interaction: the role of prejudice and metastereotypes. J. Soc. Issues 66, 334–351 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01648.x
Klein, O. & Azzi, A. E. The strategic confirmation of meta-stereotypes: how group members attempt to tailor an out-group’s representation of themselves. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 279–293 (2001).
doi: 10.1348/014466601164759
Lau, T., Morewedge, C. K. & Cikara, M. Overcorrection for social-categorization information moderates impact bias in affective forecasting. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1340–1351 (2016).
doi: 10.1177/0956797616660292
Ensari, N. & Miller, N. The out-group must not be so bad after all: the effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83, 313–329 (2002).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.313
Carothers, T. & O’Donohue, A. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization (Brookings Institution Press, 2019).
Obaidi, M., Kunst, J. R., Kteily, N., Thomsen, L. & Sidanius, J. Living under threat: mutual threat perception drives anti‐Muslim and anti‐Western hostility in the age of terrorism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 567–584 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2362
Obaidi, M., Thomsen, L. & Bergh, R. “They think we are a threat to their culture”: meta-cultural threat fuels willingness and endorsement of extremist violence against the cultural outgroup. Int. J. Confl. Violence 12, 1–13 (2018).
Ruggeri, K. et al. Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 622–633 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x
Klein, R. A. et al. Many Labs 2: investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 443–490 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/2515245918810225
Smithson, M. & Verkuilen, J. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychol. Methods 11, 54 (2006).
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.54
Brooks, M. E. et al. GlmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).
doi: 10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Bürkner, P.-C. Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. R J. 10, 395–411 (2018).
doi: 10.32614/RJ-2018-017
Livingstone, A. G., Fernández Rodríguez, L. & Rothers, A. “They just don’t understand us”: the role of felt understanding in intergroup relations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 119, 633–656 (2020).
doi: 10.1037/pspi0000221
Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200143 (2021).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0143
Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L. & Morag, Y. Fact-checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Polit. Commun. 37, 350–375 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894