People See Political Opponents as More Stupid Than Evil

Abstract

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.

When Do Observers Deprioritize Due Process for the Perpetrator and Prioritize Safety for the Victim in Response to Information-Poor Allegations of Harm?

“…Social identification is especially consequential when it is based on a "political tribe" (Clark & Winegard, 2020;Hogg & Rinella, 2018). For example, liberals and conservatives have both been found to view members of the other party as stupid, morally deficient, or evil, which can lead them to deviate from impartiality when appraising the actions of those who belong to either their tribe or a different political tribe (Finkel et al, 2020;Hartman et al, 2022;Yudkin et al, 2022). We hypothesized that when a victim-perpetrator dyad is liberal-conservative, and the institution prioritizes due process for the perpetrator (vs. safety for the victim), conservative observers will evaluate the decision more positively than liberal observers will.…”

Top Management Team Political Polarization and Its Implications for Strategic Decision-Making

“…Individuals expend a significant amount of time and cognitive resources in the development of their political identity; thus, they are more likely to treat it like a personal possession and defend it vigorously (Taber & Lodge, 2006). As a result, individuals may feel animosity and open contempt toward others with divergent political ideologies (Hartman et al, 2022). Research has shown that individuals often have socioemotional connections to their political parties such that when the party is threatened or disparaged, the individual becomes upset and motivated to overcome the threat (Mason, 2015).…”

“…Second, individuals often have a strong affective connection to their political ideology (Hartman et al, 2022). Individuals expend a significant amount of time and cognitive resources in the development of their political identity; thus, they are more likely to treat it like a personal possession and defend it vigorously (Taber & Lodge, 2006).…”

“…Political ideologies reflect a system of values that collectively reflect individuals’ preferences for “how society should be governed” (Jost et al, 2009, p. 309), which influence how people view the world and act within it (Gupta & Wowak, 2017; Jost, 2006). These deeply held values and preferences can uniquely impact how people make decisions and engage with others during the decision-making process (Hartman et al, 2022; Jost et al, 2009; Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018). Individuals differ in their political ideologies, such as conservative versus liberal (Chin et al, 2013), and economic conservative versus social conservative (Chin et al, 2021).…”

“…This, in turn, can lead to positive affect toward those who share similar ideologies (Iyengar et al, 2019). Political ideology is unique from other types of deep-level diversity (e.g., personality types such as introvert vs. extrovert) because it can lead to animosity and, increasingly, perceptions that individuals with differing political ideologies are “stupid” (Hartman et al, 2022). Consequently, political ideologies can create polarization between individuals, which can lead to conflict, discrimination, withholding of opinions, and reduced information sharing (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015; Iyengar et al, 2019; Prahl et al, 2017), all of which are detrimental to team functioning.…”