Correcting Inaccurate Metaperceptions Reduces Americans’ Support for Partisan Violence

Abstract

Scholars, policy makers, and the general public have expressed growing concern about the possibility of large-scale political violence in the United States. These worries find support in studies revealing that many American partisans support the use of violence against rival partisans. Here we propose that support for partisan violence is based in part on greatly exaggerated perceptions of rival partisans’ support for violence. We also predict that correcting these inaccurate “metaperceptions” can reduce partisans’ own support for partisan violence. We test these hypotheses in a series of pre-registered, nationally representative, correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies (total n = 4,741), collected both before and after the 2020 U.S. Presidential election and the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack. In Studies 1 and 2 we found that both Democrats’ and Republicans’ perceptions of their rival partisans’ support for violence and willingness to engage in violence were very inaccurate, with estimates ranging from 239% to 489% higher than actual levels. Further, we find that a brief, informational correction of these misperceptions reduced support for violence by 37% (Study 3) and willingness to engage in violence by 44% (Study 4). In the latter study, a follow-up survey revealed the correction continued to significantly reduce support for violence approximately one month following the study. Together, these results suggest that support for partisan violence in the United States stems in part from systematic overestimations of rival partisans’ support for violence, and that correcting these misperceptions can durably reduce support for partisan violence in the mass public.

Reducing Explicit Blatant Dehumanization by Correcting Exaggerated Meta-Perceptions

“…Although we observed promising reductions in antidemocratic hostility, we do not wish to overstate their relatively small magnitude. Correcting exaggerated meta-dehumanization produced far stronger reductions in reciprocal dehumanization than these downstream outcomes, which is consistent with previous work suggesting the link between inaccurate meta-perceptions and attitudes is largely domain-specific (Mernyk et al, 2021;Voelkel et al, 2021). To bolster their effects on downstream outcomes, researchers may combine interventions correcting (meta-) misperceptions with those inducing prosocial emotions.…”

“…Therefore, if correcting partisans' exaggerated meta-dehumanization successfully reduces their own dehumanization of out-partisans, one may also expect to see downstream reductions in these indices of anti-democratic hostility. However, previous interventions that corrected partisans' meta-perceptions have had little influence on their anti-democratic attitudes (Voelkel et al, 2021; see also Broockman et al, 2020;Mernyk et al, 2021). Nonetheless, since dehumanization may be a particularly crucial driver of hostility (e.g., Landry, Ihm & Schooler, 2022), it is possible that a meta-perception correction reducing dehumanization would produce a downstream reduction in anti-democratic hostility.…”

MAGA Republicans’ Views of American Democracy and Society and Support for Political Violence: Findings from a Nationwide Population-Representative Survey

“…Fortunately, new research is identifying potentially efficacious interventions for adaptation to specific high-risk groups or implementation at the population level. 1,2,41,42 Given our findings, intervention experts should consider how best to prevent a transition among MAGA Republicans from support for political violence to willingness to engage in it. More research is needed on the factors that lead to support for political violence; addressing those factors is a principal strategy for lessening such support in the future.…”

Racist and Pro-Violence Beliefs, Approval of Extreme Right-Wing Political Organizations and Movements, and Support for Political Violence in the United States

“…New research and analysis is identifying potentially efficacious interventions. [32][33][34][35][36][37] There is very limited evidence of those interventions' long-term efficacy or population-level effectiveness, however, at a time when such evidence is sorely needed. 38…”