Reducing Affective Polarization: Warm Group Relations or Policy Compromise?

Abstract

Hostility between rival political partisans, referred to as affective polarization, has increased in the United States over the last several decades generating considerable interest in its reduction. The current study examines two distinct sets of factors that potentially reduce affective polarization, drawn respectively from a group‐based and a policy‐based model of its origins. Specifically, we contrast the degree to which warm social relations and policy compromise reduce affective polarization. In two experimental studies (N = 937), respondents read a mock news story about an observed interaction between Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader, and Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader. The leaders either interact in a warm or hostile manner and independently compromise, or fail to compromise, on immigration matters. In both studies, warm leader relations reduced affective polarization whereas policy compromise did not. We consider the implications of these findings for the study of affective polarization and its reduction.

When a conspiracy theory goes mainstream, people feel more positive toward conspiracy theorists

“…I did not find evidence for those hypotheses. Consistent with past work (Huddy and Yair, 2020)—bipartisan consensus that UFOs should be taken seriously does not reduce people’s negative feelings toward political opponents.…”

Interventions Reducing Affective Polarization Do Not Necessarily Improve Anti-Democratic Attitudes

“…There is great concern about rising affective polarization because its presumed negative consequences may be uniquely harmful or destabilizing for democratic societies -for example by stimulating support for undemocratic candidates and practices, or by fomenting political violence (e.g., 2, 8-13). In light of the presumed dire consequences of affective polarization, academics and practitioners have invested a great deal of energy in developing interventions that reduce affective polarization, typically using outcomes based on sentiment towards opposing partisans (e.g., 12,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. This body of work has uncovered numerous effective approaches for reducing affective polarization, tools that offer hope for maintainingor restoringdemocratic norms and practices.…”

Effects of an 8-Week Mindfulness Course on Affective Polarization

“…Previous research has investigated a range of psychological interventions to reduce affective polarization (Garrett et al, 2014;Huddy & Yair, 2021;Iyengar et al, 2019;Levendusky, 2018;Warner et al, 2020;Wojcieszak & Garrett, 2018). For example, one intervention that has shown considerable promise is imagined intergroup contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009; see also Pettigrew, 1998 for intergroup contact theory), which involves imagining positive social interactions with outgroup members.…”