October 29, 2024
4 minimum read
people overestimate the immoral behavior of political opponents
Healing political divisions starts with common moral ground, research suggests
What do you think about members of the opposing party? Maybe you think they’re annoying or even stupid. Or you might even call them “bigots” or “immoral.” Americans are deeply divided politically, and harsh language is not uncommon. Majorities of Republicans and Democrats say they disagree about basic facts, and both parties report hating their political opponents more than they love them. Although there is no reliable polling data from the 1800s, some scholars suggest that the country has not been this polarized since the Civil War.
The roots of this division are varied and include structural features of the United States, such as a two-party system that pits “us” against “them,” and social media algorithms that present each side’s most anger-inducing content. are. This political environment shapes our beliefs about the other side, which can further drive division. However, research shows that these concepts are often wrong. For example, a 2015 survey found that Democrats incorrectly believed that 38% of Republicans earned more than $250,000 a year (the actual figure was 2.2%), and Republicans in the same survey believed that 32% of Democrats earned more than $250,000 a year. mistakenly thought they were gay, lesbian, or bisexual (the actual figure was 6.3 percent); We also have misconceptions about how much the other person hates us and over-exaggerate their hostility.
A common misconception is that they are-Unlike us—lacking true moral values. We care about people, but they want to burn everything down. We are fighting for good. they are working for evil. Recent research has shown that these misconceptions about morality are deeply rooted. People think that many of the opposing parties are admitting a clear moral error.
About supporting science journalism
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.
The national survey asked more than 600 participants who identified as Democrats or Republicans to rate six basic moral transgressions: false imprisonment, tax evasion, embezzlement or animal abuse, viewing child pornography, and cheating on a spouse. I asked him to do so. Almost all said they disapproved of these actions. (Depending on the specific behavior, a small number of participants (less than 5%) said they approve.)
There was no noticeable difference between the two. This is consistent with past research. In fact, scientists who study moral psychology have found that most people actually share a “moral sensibility.” That is, even though people may have different ideas about a particular action or issue, their central concern in moral dilemmas ultimately comes down to protecting vulnerable people from harm. .
We then asked participants to estimate how likely their political opponents were to approve of these actions. Our results show that, on average, about 23 percent of their political opponents believe that they admit basic moral wrongness, even though the actual share among Democrats and Republicans was close to zero for both parties. I showed it.
This pattern continued even when we experimented with variations of the study by adding additional participants to minimize the possibility of intentional exaggeration. But even when we tried to pay participants to ensure accuracy (a common strategy in this kind of research), people still overestimated the proportion of their political opponents who found basic moral wrongs. was.
Further research has demonstrated that this distorted perception of the other side’s basic moral values also fosters division. For example, the more people believe that their political opponents are immoral, the more likely they are to make statements that dehumanize them, such as statements that suggest that members of the other party have “an animal-like lack of self-control.” They were more likely to agree with the statement. People also refused to talk to or even try to understand any of the opponents, presumably because of immoral behavior.
These distorted perceptions also show up in public conversations about politics. A study of all posts (approximately 5.8 million posts) from 5,806 users on ” were found to be more likely to be used. ” “Sociopaths” and “murderers” when commenting on each other more than when commenting on non-political topics. In 2013, people were not particularly likely to use these words when talking about political opponents. In fact, they applied these terms just as often when posting about celebrities. However, around the mid-2010s, this hostile term spiked in posts about political opponents, and has remained high ever since.
Can we stop people from doing this? One simple solution might be to remind each other of our shared moral values.
For example, our recent research found that providing specific information that emphasizes someone’s basic moral values can increase cross-aisle cooperation. In one study, learning that a conversation partner with opposing political views shared participants’ condemnation of evils such as tax evasion and animal cruelty led to a lower Partners are more likely to interact.
It is clear that this solution cannot resolve all political divisions, but it can still have a powerful effect. Sometimes we need to be reminded that they are It’s like us. We may disagree on many issues, but underlying our disagreements are shared moral values. That means we all care deeply about protecting our friends, families, and communities from harm. Talking about our core principles and values (many of which we share) before talking about controversial issues can help the conversation go more smoothly.
Are you a scientist specializing in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read any recent peer-reviewed papers you’d like to write about? Submit your proposal scientific americanDaisy Yuhas, editor of Mind Matters dyuhas@sciam.com.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.
