The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived Polarization

Enders, Adam M.; Armaly, Miles T.

doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2

Cited by 103 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If people assume that intergroup interactions are going to be more hostile, this may partially explain why GMPs are overly negative and associated with negative motive attributions, although it does not explain why GMPs are so inaccurate. Similarly, while recent evidence suggests that perceptions of political party polarization in the US have become more negative and inaccurate over the past four decades 18,31 , this does not explain inaccurate GMPs in the domain of gender, why there is no evidence for GMP inaccuracy in cooperative political contexts, and why there is no evidence that inaccurate GMPs vary across the scenario content or party of the perceiver.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Overrepresentation of single identifiers (e.g. Hong Kongese single identifiers or Chinese single identifiers) at the observable behavioral level will strengthen the perceived polarization of public opinion, which is known to have a stronger impact on political outcomes than actual polarization (Enders and Armaly, 2019). Therefore, the divergence between the polarization at the attitudinal/affective levels and that at the behavioral level has profound implications for a society with a large share of multiple identifiers such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Catalonia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depolarization through social media use: Evidence from dual identifiers in Hong Kong

Kobayashi

2020

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the concern that partisan selectivity in the political use of social media leads to mass polarization, the empirical evidence is mixed at best. Given the possibility that these inconclusive findings are attributable to moderators in the process that have not been adequately studied, this article elaborates the roles played by different forms of social identities. By analyzing three datasets collected in Hong Kong, where Chinese and Hong Kongese identities are constructed in a nonmutually exclusive way, this study demonstrates that (1) partisan selectivity in media use is reliably detected among those with single Hong Kongese identity, but not among those with dual identities of Hong Kongese and Chinese, (2) the political use of social media polarizes the attitudes and affects of single identifiers, whereas it has depolarizing effects on dual identifiers, and (3) these contrasting effects on polarization between single and dual identifiers have downstream consequences for political participation.

show abstract

“…For example, in judging the political views of other individuals, those with more extreme political attitudes are in fact more accurate judges (Ivanov et al, 2018). By contrast, when inaccuracies are examined among perceptions of the intergroup gap in ideological positions, those with less extreme partisan positions (Van Boven et al, 2012), weaker ingroup identity (Ahler & Sood, 2018;Enders & Armaly, 2018), and less political sophistication (Armaly & Enders, 2020) are more accurate. These disparate findings highlight the need for scholars to carefully disambiguate the inaccurate beliefs they are investigating, as inaccuracies across differing phenomena (e.g., factual statistics vs. the attitudes of specific others vs. the true intergroup gap in attitudes) may have distinct psychological antecedents.…”

Section: How Inaccuracy In First Vs Second-order Beliefs Lead To Actmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Sometimes polarization is defined as these phenomena at an intergroup rather than individual level of analysis. That is, polarization is the empirical gap in ideology, outgroup attitudes, or ingroup identification between parties (e.g., Enders & Armaly, 2018;Navajas et al, 2019;Porter & Schumann, 2018).…”

Section: A Typology Of Polarization Actual and (Mis)perceivedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding inaccurate first-order beliefs is paramount, as such inaccuracies have been linked to a host of negative intergroup outcomes. For example, perceived out-party polarization (measured as perceived outgroup policy attitude extremity) is more strongly associated with negative outgroup evaluations than is perceiver's level of actual polarization (their own policy preferences; Enders & Armaly, 2018). Similarly, partisans vastly overestimate the levels of party-stereotypic membership (e.g., the percentage of Democrats who are LGBT); these inaccurate perceptions correlate with out-party dislike and participants' feelings of social distance from out-party members (Ahler & Sood, 2018).…”

Section: How Inaccuracy In First Vs Second-order Beliefs Lead To Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding and Combating Misperceived Polarization

Lees¹,

Cikara²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By many accounts politics is becoming more polarized, yielding dire consequences for democracy and trust in government. Yet a growing body of research on “false polarization” finds that perceptions of “what the other side believes” are inaccurate–specifically, overly pessimistic–and that these inaccuracies exacerbate intergroup conflict. Through a review of existing work and a reanalysis of published data, we (i) develop a typology of the disparate phenomena that are labeled “polarization,” (ii) use that typology to understand when polarization is “false,” and (iii) identify when false polarization gives rise to true polarization (e.g., extreme issue attitudes and prejudice). We further suggest that a specific psychological domain is ideal for developing corrective interventions: meta-perception, one’s judgment of how they are perceived by others. We review evidence indicating that correcting meta-perception inaccuracies is effective at reducing intergroup conflict, and discuss methods for precisely measuring meta-perception accuracy. We argue that the reputational nature of meta-perception provides a motivational mechanism by which individuals are sensitive to the truth, even when those truths pertain to the “other side.” We conclude by discussing how these insights can be integrated into existing research across multiple disciplines seeking to understand polarization and its negative consequences.

show abstract

The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived Polarization

Cited by 103 publications

References 32 publications

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

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

Depolarization through social media use: Evidence from dual identifiers in Hong Kong

Understanding and Combating Misperceived Polarization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About