They don’t actually think that: Resolve political ‘differences’ by changing your assumptions

If there’s one thing everyone can agree on, it is that politics lately has never felt more divided, divisive, and dire. In 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats reported that the other side was more immoral than other Americans (Pew Research Center, 2022).

Not only do we think the other side is awful, but we also think they think the same of us! Recently, researchers have begun investigating this notion of meta-perceptions — what you believe the other side believes of you. How often have you thought “I wonder if they like me?” That is a meta-perception! For political relationships, the thought generally sounds less lovey, and more “I bet they think I’m an idiot” or “I imagine they must hate me”.

These thoughts — these meta-perceptions — lead us to demonize the other side and think of them as less than human, further increasing our polarized political landscape. But what if you met someone who disproved your meta-perception? Would you be less willing to dehumanize them? The research says yes!

The problem is that research has repeatedly shown that your meta-perceptions are widely inaccurate (Lees & Cikara, 2022). We constantly overestimate how far apart we are on political issues, how much the other side hates us, and how far the other side would go for their own political ends. The more we believe in these meta-perceptions and the more inaccurate they become, the more we dehumanize, demonize, and find ourselves unwilling to interact with opposing political party members (Moore-Berg et al., 2020).

Most research on meta-perceptions has focused on just asking you questions like: “How much do you think [opposing side] dehumanizes [your side]”? After getting your answer, researchers tell you the truth (that it is lower), and show that you dehumanize the opposing side a little bit less in the future. While that’s great, it’s not how the real world works. We make these guesses about our opponents because we don’t know what they’re thinking, and we don’t have anyone to tell us what the truth of the matter is.

So, we need to find ways to emphasize that our perceptions of others are wrong — in a way that is more real to the real world. One way we can do that is remind you of people who don’t fit your preconceived notions — who are atypical to your stereotype. When we are exposed to these atypical individuals, we find them less threatening, more favorable, and even begin to update how we think about the group as a whole.

In two studies, my colleagues and I wanted to know what would happen if you met someone who contradicted your highest held meta-perception. We had over 700 American participants pick from a list of meta-perceptions that they believed the most. For example, maybe a Democrat reports that they believe that Republicans think all Democrats want to steal their guns. We would then ‘match’ them with a Republican partner who either strongly agrees or strongly disagrees that Democrats want to steal their guns.

We found that when you meet this atypical person, you report that you want to learn more about them, much more than when they confirm what you thought they would say. We also found that you dehumanize this atypical partner much less than you dehumanize the typical partner.

We also exposed all participants to the reasons why their partner had voted for the other side. These reasons were vetted in a prior study to be the most convincing — a reason that would make you say, “Yes, I understand why you might make that wrong choice”. Here too — hearing the personal, convincing reasons why someone of the opposing side voted for their candidate of choice — decreased your dehumanization of them.

Of course, not everything is rainbows and butterflies. We had also asked if our participants wanted to meet their partner and work with them in future studies. Unfortunately, the atypical partner wasn’t enough to get you to want to meet them and grab a beer with them, nor was learning about their rationale for voting for the other side.

After having learned why they voted for the opposing political party, we encouraged participants to write messages back to their partners. We found that the language used differed based on whether their partner contradicted their meta-perception. Participants who had partners who confirmed what they had predicted used words disengaging from and putting a distance between themselves and their partner. On the other hand, participants who interacted with a partner who was atypical, these participants used words that encouraged further conversations and validated the partner’s perspective, such as ‘valid’.

The research doesn’t come without its limitations. For one, we were unable to detect whether participants updated their meta-perceptions or updated their understanding of the opposing political party as a whole. That is, is your partner a new representative of the group, or are they the exception to the rule? We can’t be sure, and future research will need to see if we did indeed get you to rethink your understanding of the opposing side. We also had these interactions occur in an online space, and we might wonder how this would play out in a face-to-face style instead.

Still — this research has real practical value. The next time you encounter a person of the opposing political party than you, take a moment and think. How can you possibly know what this unique person thinks of you? Remember — your perceptions are widely inaccurate, and holding them will only continue to keep political strife high. If you’re feeling bold, ask them to explain what they think — and be willing to engage with them. You might find out that you share more in common than you think — and you’ll be better off knowing the truth.

This research is out now in Frontiers in Social Psychology, under the title You’re not like the rest of them: Disrupting meta-perceptions dilutes dehumanization (Carriere et al., 2024).

This research received support by the Institute for Humane Studies under grant #IHS017893.

References

Carriere, K. R., Hallenbeck, G., Sullivan, D., Ghion, R. (2024). You’re not like the rest of them: Disrupting meta-perceptions dilutes dehumanization. Frontiers in Social Psychology, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2024.1369709

Lees, J. M., & Cikara, M. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4

Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14864–14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117

Pew Research Center (2022). As partisan hostility grows, signs of frustration with the two-party system.

About The Author

Kevin Carriere M.P.P., PhD., is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Stonehill College in Easton, Massachusetts. He previously worked at Washington & Jefferson College, and spent his postdoctoral fellowship working as a Policy Advisor to Congresswoman Deb Haaland. He received his PhD in Psychology and a Masters in Public Policy from Georgetown University. His current research interests are in political psychology, examining how individuals choose to join and stick with their groups, such as political groups, labor unions, and national identities.