Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts

Lees, Jeffrey Martin; Cikara, Mina

doi:10.31234/osf.io/6qayb

Cited by 39 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, recent research provides evidence that correcting ideological polarization between political partisans effectively reduces negative intergroup outcomes (Lees & Cikara, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exaggerated Meta-Perceptions Predict Intergroup Hostility Between American Political Partisans

Moore‐Berg¹,

Karlinsky²,

Hameiri³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People’s actions towards a competitive outgroup can be motivated not only by their perceptions of the outgroup, but also by how they think the outgroup perceives the ingroup (i.e., meta-perceptions). Here we examine the prevalence, accuracy, and consequences of meta-perceptions among American political partisans. Using a representative sample (N = 1056) and a longitudinal convenience sample (N = 2707), we find that Democrats and Republicans equally dislike and dehumanize each other, but think that the levels of prejudice and dehumanization held by the outgroup party are approximately twice as strong as actually reported by a representative sample of Democrats and Republicans. Overestimations of negative meta-perceptions were consistent across samples, over time and between demographic subgroups, but were modulated by political ideology: more strongly liberal Democrats and more strongly conservative Republicans were particularly prone to exaggerate meta-perceptions. Finally, we show that meta-prejudice and meta-dehumanization are independently associated with desire for social distance from members of the outgroup party and support for policies that harm the country and flout democratic norms to favor the ingroup political party. This research demonstrates that partisan meta-perceptions are subject to a strong negativity bias, with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the shadow of partisanship is much larger than it actually is, which fosters mutual intergroup hostility.

show abstract

“…In fact, recent research provides evidence that correcting ideological polarization between political partisans effectively reduces negative intergroup outcomes (Lees & Cikara, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exaggerated Meta-Perceptions Predict Intergroup Hostility Between American Political Partisans

Moore‐Berg¹,

Karlinsky²,

Hameiri³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, a longitudinal study demonstrated that daily exposure to political situations was associated with worse physical and mental well-being (Feinberg et al, 2020). Additionally, exposure to hateful content can decrease social trust (Näsi et al, 2015) and exaggerate the feeling of outgroup threat (Lees & Cikara, 2020), which could add to negative well-being outcomes. Further work should examine the consequence of engaging in political discourse online on users' well-being.…”

Section: Implications Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negativity Spreads More than Positivity on Twitter After Both Positive and Negative Political Situations

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What type of emotional language spreads further in political discourses on social media? Previous research has focused on situations that primarily elicited negative emotions, showing that negative language tended to spread further. The current project extends existing knowledge by examining the spread of emotional language in response to both predominantly positive and negative political situations. In Study 1, we examined the spread of emotional language in tweets related to the winning and losing parties in the 2016 US elections, finding that increased negativity (but not positivity) predicted content sharing in both situations. In Study 2, we compared the spread of emotional language in two separate situations: the celebration of the US Supreme Court approval of same-sex marriage (positive) and the Ferguson unrest (negative), finding again that negativity spread further. These results shed light on the nature of political discourse and engagement.

show abstract

“…from "not at all respectful" to "very respectful." We developed this measure in light of recent research suggesting the importance of meta-perception in explaining, and reducing, political polarization (Lees and Cikara, 2020).…”

Section: Outcome Variables and Other Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The short-term, circumscribed, and conditional effects of cross-partisan conversation

Santoro¹,

Broockman²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars and activists have raised alarm about affective polarization---voters' increasing dislike for supporters of opposing political parties---and its potential negative implications for democracy. Organizations, activists, and scholars have identified cross-partisan conversations as a promising paradigm for reducing affective polarization and, in turn, bolstering democratic accountability. However, existing theory and empirical work remains ambiguous. We argue that cross-partisan conversations have potential to reduce intergroup prejudices, but that such one-shot interactions are likely to have short-term effects that decay, would be circumscribed within the interpersonal domain and not extend to democratic attitudes, and would be conditional on topic, diminishing if the conversations dwell on group differences. We support this argument with results from two unique experiments where we paired outpartisan strangers in real time to discuss randomly assigned topics face-to-face over video calls. In Study 1, we found that non-political conversations between outpartisans dramatically decreased affective polarization, reversing over two decades' worth of increases. However, these impacts decayed completely in a follow-up survey. Moreover, the conversations had no effect on outcomes related to democratic accountability, such as support for outpartisan politicians. Study 2 replicated Study 1's results in a more representative sample and included conversations about group differences (i.e., politics). We again found large effects of non-political cross-partisan conversations on affective polarization, but that conversations about group differences had no effects. All conversations were again ineffective at changing democratic attitudes. Our results support our argument regarding the conditional, short-term, and circumscribed effects of cross-partisan conversations.

show abstract

Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts

Cited by 39 publications

References 0 publications

Exaggerated Meta-Perceptions Predict Intergroup Hostility Between American Political Partisans

Exaggerated Meta-Perceptions Predict Intergroup Hostility Between American Political Partisans

Negativity Spreads More than Positivity on Twitter After Both Positive and Negative Political Situations

The short-term, circumscribed, and conditional effects of cross-partisan conversation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About