4.7 Article

The general fault in our fault lines

Journal

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
Volume 5, Issue 10, Pages 1369-U130

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Global Scholars Program, Undergraduate Global Engagement
  2. Provost's Office at Columbia University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that people often have overly negative perceptions of opposing political party members, but transparency can make these perceptions more realistic. Informing individuals of their misperceptions can reduce their negative beliefs about out-groups. The research explores the generalizability of these results to other countries.
Ruggeri et al. tested perceptions of opposing political party members in 10,207 participants from 26 countries. Results show that beliefs about others are overly negative but could be more realistic with transparency about actual group beliefs. Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available