Deep partisan conflict in the mass public threatens the stability of American democracy. We conducted a megastudy (n=32,059) testing 25 interventions designed by academics and practitioners to reduce Americans’ partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes. We find nearly every intervention reduced partisan animosity, most strongly by highlighting sympathetic and relatable individuals with different political beliefs. We also identify several interventions that reduced support for undemocratic practices and partisan violence, most strongly by correcting misperceptions of outpartisans’ views – showing that anti-democratic attitudes, although difficult to move, are not intractable. Furthermore, both factor analysis and patterns of intervention effect sizes provide convergent evidence for limited overlap between these sets of outcomes, suggesting that, contrary to popular belief, different strategies are most effective for reducing partisan animosity versus anti-democratic attitudes. Taken together, our findings provide a toolkit of promising strategies for practitioners and shed new theoretical light on challenges facing American democracy.
Around the world, citizens are voting away the democracies they claim to cherish. Why are they voting against their own values? In this article, we provide evidence that this behavior is driven in part by fear that their opponents might dismantle democracy first. In an observational study (N=1,973), we find that US partisans who most fear the other party’s willingness to subvert democracy are also those most willing to support subverting democracy themselves. In an experimental study (N=2,543), we use an intervention to reduce these often exaggerated fears. With these fears reduced, partisans become more committed to upholding democratic norms. They also become more willing to vote against candidates of their own party who break these norms. The findings suggest that we can foster democratic stability by strengthening trust in opposing partisans’ commitment to democracy.
Around the world, would-be authoritarian leaders have convinced their supporters to vote away the democracies they claim to cherish. How is this possible? We argue that simply fearing that opposing partisans support democratic backsliding can lead individuals to support it themselves. Would-be authoritarians may then be able to start a self-reinforcing dynamic of democratic backsliding by fostering these fears, which then generate exaggerated fears on the other. Using observational and experimental studies (N=4,400), we present four findings consistent with this account: Republicans and Democrats (1) overestimate opposing partisan willingness to break democratic norms; (2) will support their party breaking democratic norms themselves to the extent that they overestimate willingness by the other side; (3) that experimentally correcting this overestimation reduces support for breaking norms, and (4) increases the likelihood of voting for candidates that uphold democratic norms. Our findings suggest that we can foster democratic stability even in a highly polarized society using interventions that simply correct misperceptions about opposing partisans’ commitment to democratic norms
Around the world, citizens are voting away the democracies they claim to cherish. Why are they voting against their own values? In this article, we provide evidence that this behavior is driven in part by fear that their opponents might dismantle democracy first. In an observational study (N=1,973), we find that US partisans who most fear the other party's willingness to subvert democracy are also those most willing to support subverting democracy themselves. In an experimental study (N=2,543), we use an intervention to reduce these often exaggerated fears. With these fears reduced, partisans become more committed to upholding democratic norms. They also become more willing to vote against candidates of their own party who break these norms. The findings suggest that we can foster democratic stability by strengthening trust in opposing partisans' commitment to democracy.
The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.