Targeting our blind spot: A metacognitive intervention ameliorates negative feelings, evaluations, and stereotypes towards conservatives in a liberal sample

Abstract

Political polarization between conservatives and liberals threatens democratic societies. Ameliorating liberal research participants’ negative feelings, evaluations, and stereotypes towards conservatives might be one step into the direction of a political depolarization. In a sample of U.S.-American liberal research participants recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (N = 271), we randomly assigned participants in a pre-post-design either to a clinical-psychological, metacognitive-intervention (MCT), an educational, or a no-treatment-no-pre-measurement-control-condition. In the MCT-condition, participants were first asked seemingly simple questions that frequently elicited incorrect responses, followed by corrective information. In the educational condition, information was conveyed in a simple narrative form. MCT was significantly more effective in ameliorating liberal participants’ negative feelings, evaluations, and stereotypes towards conservatives compared to the other two control-conditions. Further, MCT-participants significantly reduced their negative feelings, negative evaluations, and perceptions of threat from pre- to post-measurement, significantly more than participants in the educational condition. The results of our preliminary study and its implications are discussed, and recommendations for further research are made.

Ignorance of critical race theory predicts White Americans’ opposition to it

“…As both conditions involved being tested on CRT knowledge at the outset and to some extent having to acknowledge the limits of one's understanding, it is somewhat unsurprising that both conditions showed some movement. Our analysis was a fairly conservative test of the treatment's efficacy, as previous meta‐cognitive intervention studies have primarily compared treatment with no information, a fact‐sheet, or different variations on the timing and specificity of feedback (Moritz et al., 2021; Reininger et al., 2020).…”

Validation of the German version of the Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale.

“…This overconfidence on the therapist’s side even leads to the observation that possibly “therapist humility may differentiate the most from least globally effective therapists, and this virtue should be cultivated in clinical trainings” (Constantino et al, 2023, p. 474). Humility and doubt (vs. overconfidence) thus seem to be an effective factor not only for social and political groups, reducing polarization and intergroup as well as interpersonal hostility (Moritz et al, 2018, 2021; Reininger et al 2023; Reininger, Krott, et al, 2020; Reininger, Schaefer, et al, 2020; Simon et al, 2019; Zitzmann et al, 2022), they seem to be relevant both on the part of patients (Hoven et al, 2019), as well as on the level of practitioners (Constantino et al, 2023). Thus, more optimally for these types of studies would be to collect independent clinical ratings of technique/outcomes and/or patient ratings of outcome (see Boswell et al, 2023; Bugatti et al, 2023; Wampold & Miller, 2023).…”

How to tackle political polarization — the researchers trying to bridge divides

“…Republicans think that around 36% of Democrats are atheist or agnostic (the true figure is about 9%) and Democrats think that around 44% of Republicans earn more than US$250,000 (2% actually do) 8 . In one study 9 , helping people with liberal views to correct false beliefs increased their feeling of warmth towards people with a conservative outlook by about 7 points on a 100-point scale.…”