How (many) descriptive claims about political polarization exacerbate polarization

Abstract

Recently, researchers and reporters have made a wide range of claims about the distribution, nature, and societal impact of political polarization. Here I offer reasons to believe that even when they are correct and prima facie merely descriptive, many of these claims have the highly negative side effect of increasing political polarization. This is because of the interplay of two factors that have so far been neglected in the work on political polarization, namely that (1) people tend to conform to descriptive norms (i.e., norms capturing [perceptions of] what others commonly do, think, or feel), and that (2) claims about political polarization often convey such norms. Many of these claims thus incline people to behave, cognize, and be affectively disposed in ways that contribute to social division. But there is a silver lining. People’s tendency to conform to descriptive norms also provides the basis for developing new, experimentally testable strategies for counteracting political polarization. I outline three.

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity

“…Political groups develop warped perceptions about each other, incorrectly thinking their opponents possess especially extreme political views (false polarization) [56,[74][75][76], and lack key human traits (dehumanization) [77,78]. Partisans also overestimate how negatively they would feel if they interacted with their opponents [79], and have exaggerated perceptions of how much their opponents dislike and dehumanize them (inaccurate meta-perceptions) [42,80]. These misconceptions may stem from several sources, such as through the influence of political elites, mass media, and social media [81].…”

“…We consider both social and mass media as primary components of public discourse and touch on the roles that members of the public, political pundits, and elected officials play in shaping public discourse. Public political discourse may play a role in either increasing or reducing partisan animosity, in part because public communication shapes social norms [80,137] about appropriate ways to communicate across divides.…”

“…In the current political climate, many norms surrounding public discourse about politics tend towards hostility and animosity [80,138]. On social media, where signaling outgroup dislike increases engagement, users are incentivized to increase antagonism, facilitate the spread of misinformation, and stoke both tribalism and moral outrage [120,[139][140][141][142][143][144].…”

“…Mass media can provide powerful social proof to reduce partisan animosity xxii [80,149,150] by balancing politically extreme pundits with a more diverse and representative set of perspectives, emphasizing people's increasing desire to reduce animosity [151,152],…”

Interventions to Reduce Partisan Animosity

“…In the current political climate, many norms surrounding public discourse about politics tend towards hostility and animosity [80,138]. On social media, where signaling outgroup dislike increases engagement, users are incentivized to increase antagonism, facilitate the spread of misinformation, and stoke both tribalism and moral outrage [120,[139][140][141][142][143][144].…”