Rising partisan animosity is linked to less support for democracy and more support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to improve partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework for the three levels of interventions-Thoughts (correcting misconceptions, highlighting commonalities), Relationships (building dialogue skills, fostering positive contact), and Institutions (changing public discourse, transforming political structures)-and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects, as well as real-world interventions led by practitioners in nonprofit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.
Rising partisan animosity is linked to less support for democracy and more support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to improve partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework for the three levels of interventions—Thoughts (correcting misconceptions, highlighting commonalities), Relationships (building dialogue skills, fostering positive contact), and Institutions (changing public discourse, transforming political structures)—and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects, as well as real-world interventions led by practitioners in nonprofit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.
Affective polarization is a rising threat to political discourse and democracy. Public figures have expressed that “conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil.” However, four studies ( N = 1,660)—including a representative sample—reveal evidence that both sides view political opponents as more unintelligent than immoral. Perceiving the other side as “more stupid than evil” occurs both in general judgments (Studies 1, 3, and 4) and regarding specific issues (Study 2). Study 4 also examines “meta-perceptions” of how Democrats and Republicans disparage one another, revealing that people correctly perceive that both Democrats and Republicans see each other as more unintelligent than immoral, although they exaggerate the extent of this negativity. These studies clarify the way everyday partisans view each other, an important step in designing effective interventions to reduce political animosity.
Survey respondents who are non-attentive, respond randomly, or misrepresent who they are can impact the outcomes of surveys. Prior findings reported by the CDC have suggested that people engaged in highly dangerous cleaning practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, including ingesting household cleaners such as bleach. In our attempts to replicate the CDC’s results, we found that 100% of reported ingestion of household cleaners are made by problematic respondents. Once inattentive, acquiescent, and careless respondents are removed from the sample, we find no evidence that people ingested cleaning products to prevent a COVID-19 infection. These findings have important implications for public health and medical survey research, as well as for best practices for avoiding problematic respondents in all survey research conducted online.
People in online studies sometimes misrepresent themselves. Regardless of their motive for doing so, participant misrepresentation threatens the validity of research. Here, we propose and evaluate a way to verify the age of online respondents: a test of cultural knowledge. Across six studies (N = 1,543), participants of various ages completed an age verification instrument. The instrument assessed familiarity with cultural phenomena (e.g., songs and tv shows) from decades past and present. We consistently found our instrument discriminated between people of different ages. In Studies 1a and 1b, age strongly correlated with performance on the instrument (mean r = .8). In Study 2, the instrument reliably detected imposters who we knew were misrepresenting their age. For impostors, age did not correlate with performance on the instrument (r. = .077). Finally in Studies 3a, 3b, and 3c, the instrument remained robust with people from racial minority groups, low educational backgrounds, and those who had recently immigrated to the US. Thus, our instrument shows promise for verifying the age of online respondents, and, as we discuss, our approach of assessing “insider knowledge” holds great promise for verifying other identities within online studies.
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.