{"id":626562,"date":"2024-10-31T14:48:47","date_gmt":"2024-10-31T18:48:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/?p=626562"},"modified":"2024-11-13T11:41:51","modified_gmt":"2024-11-13T16:41:51","slug":"political-divide-megastudy-antidemocratic-attitudes-partisan-animosity-626562","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/political-divide-megastudy-antidemocratic-attitudes-partisan-animosity-626562\/","title":{"rendered":"Research-backed ways to bridge America\u2019s political divide"},"content":{"rendered":"

Researchers successfully tested 25 different approaches. Two proved most effective.<\/strong><\/h2>\n

As a country we are deeply divided. That much we can agree<\/a> upon. But there may be ways to bridge the chasm, according to a new megastudy published in Science<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The researchers discovered that some attitudes\u2014specifically, support for undemocratic practices (such as trying to curtail free speech, spreading intentional misinformation, or attempting to curb voting in certain precincts) and partisan violence\u2014are clearly distinct from partisan animosity (a strong dislike of or deep distrust between supporters of the opposite party). Thus, lessening animosity does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the other two attitudes.<\/p>\n

On the flip side, successful interventions that reduced partisan animosity tended to reduce a host of other problems, such as social distrust, social distance, opposition to bipartisan cooperation, biased evaluation of politicized facts, and support for undemocratic candidates.<\/p>\n

According to James Druckman<\/a>, the Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science<\/a> at the Ä¢¹½´«Ã½<\/a> (one of the six original researchers to start the megastudy), two of the evaluated approaches were particularly effective across outcomes\u2014even for reducing support for undemocratic practices and partisan violence:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Correcting misperceptions of the other side<\/li>\n
  2. Using cues to show that elites, such as political candidates or officeholders, place great importance on upholding democratic norms<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u201cPeople tend to exaggerate the antidemocratic attitudes or the violent inclinations of the other side. And they exaggerate just how different the other side is from your own,\u201d says Druckman, who is an expert on democracy and political division. \u201cWhen you provide information or opportunities to interact with people from the other side and learn about some commonality, that seemed to be a pretty effective approach. The focus on addressing misperceptions seems to be very, very useful.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \n

    What is a megastudy?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    \"Book
    \nPolitical scientist James Druckman knows about designing experiments, having written or edited books on experimental political science, including the award-winning     Experimental Thinking: A Primer on Social Science Experiments<\/em><\/a> (Cambridge University Press, 2022). Research methods across disciplines include megastudies, or experiments that can test several treatments simultaneously using the same outcomes, control condition, and sample. Check out Druckman\u2019s latest research<\/a> on how to design and conduct a megastudy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    Megastudy assesses 250-plus approaches <\/b><\/h3>\n

    Back in 2019, when Druckman first got involved with the project as a faculty member at Northwestern University, he figured the task ahead would be considerable. Little did he know the gargantuan undertaking it would become.<\/p>\n

    Pockets of people\u2014academics in various disciplines and civic organizations alike\u2014had begun working on behavioral interventions to address the three most pertinent threats to US democracy: partisan hostility, antidemocratic attitudes, and noticeable support for political violence. But the findings remained fragmented. What was needed was one large, unified collection of ideas where the best could be tested in rigorously controlled, scientific experiments.<\/p>\n

    The resulting study spans a whopping 32,059 study participants, 252 treatment ideas (whittled down to 25 interventions), 85 coauthors, five countries, and dozens of universities, institutions, and organizations. The researchers come from the fields of political science, sociology, psychology, economics communications, and marketing, as well as from civic organizations.<\/p>\n

    One approach does not fit all<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    While most of the tested interventions (self-administered online modules about 8 minutes in length) worked to reduce partisan hostility, only about a quarter successfully lowered support for undemocratic practices. And just one-fifth proved useful in reducing support for political violence.<\/p>\n

    The degree to which those interventions worked was also telling.<\/p>\n

    The researchers found that it\u2019s much easier, for example, to reduce a person\u2019s animosity toward someone of the opposite political opinion than it is to reduce someone\u2019s support for political violence. According to Druckman, that\u2019s in part because support for violence is already relatively low, so there\u2019s less room for reduction. Yet, Druckman notes, the minority who supports violence is \u201clikely more extreme in its opinions and, therefore, harder to convince to change its views.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Of the 25 tested interventions<\/a> in the megastudy:<\/p>\n