Search

Scholars warn that partisan divisions in the mass public threaten the health of American democracy. We conducted a megastudy ( n = 32,059 participants) testing 25 treatments designed by academics and practitioners to reduce Americans' partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes. We find that many treatments reduced partisan animosity, most strongly by highlighting relatable sympathetic individuals with different political beliefs or by emphasizing common identities shared by rival partisans. We also identify several treatments that reduced support for undemocratic practices-most strongly by correcting misperceptions of rival partisans' views or highlighting the threat of democratic collapse-which shows that antidemocratic attitudes are not intractable. Taken together, the study's findings identify promising general strategies for reducing partisan division and improving democratic attitudes, shedding theoretical light on challenges facing American democracy.

We explore meta-perceptions (i.e., what we think others think about reality), their impact on intergroup conflict, and the interventions correcting these often-erroneous perceptions. We introduce a two (direct or indirect) by two (with or without framing) framework classifying these interventions, and we critically assess the benefits and constraints of these approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors have no interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A large portion of research in the social sciences is devoted to using interventions to combat societal and social problems, such as prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict. However, these interventions are often developed using the theories and/or intuitions of the individuals who developed them and evaluated in isolation without comparing their efficacy with other interventions. Here, we make the case for an experimental design that addresses such issues: an intervention tournament-that is, a study that compares several different interventions against a single control and uses the same standardized outcome measures during assessment and participants drawn from the same population. We begin by highlighting the utility of intervention tournaments as an approach that complements other, more commonly used approaches to addressing societal issues. We then describe various approaches to intervention tournaments, which include crowdsourced, curated, and in-house-developed intervention tournaments, and their unique characteristics. Finally, we discuss practical recommendations and key design insights for conducting such research, given the existing literature. These include considerations of intervention-tournament deployment, characteristics of included interventions, statistical analysis and reporting, study design, longitudinal and underlying psychological mechanism assessment, and theoretical ramifications.

Two studies (one preregistered) of Americans (N = 2200) drawn from a nationally representative panel show that both Democrats and Republicans personally value core democratic characteristics, such as free and fair elections, but severely underestimate opposing party members' support for those same characteristics. Democrats estimate that the average Democrat values democratic characteristics 56% (in Study 1) and 77% (in Study 2) more than the average Republican. In a mirror image, Republicans estimate that the average Republican values democratic characteristics 82% (in Study 1) and 88% (in Study 2) more than the average Democrat. In turn, the tendency to believe that political ingroup members value democratic characteristics more than political outgroup members is associated with support for anti-democratic practices, especially among Republicans. Results suggest biased and inaccurate intergroup perceptions may contribute to democratic erosion in the United States., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Recent research suggests holding a structural, rather than interpersonal, understanding of racism is associated with greater impetus to address racial disparities. We believe greater acknowledgment of structural racism also functions to mitigate against empathic failures in response to structural injustices. Given South Africa's situatedness as a country characterized by historical racialized oppression and continuing unjust legacies, it is appropriate to examine these ideas there. Across three studies, we tested the hypotheses that members of advantaged groups' perspective taking and empathic concern may be compromised in response to people challenging the unequal status quo , and that a priori perceptions about the impact of structural (vs interpersonal) racism may mitigate or exacerbate such empathic failures. In Study 1, a national sample of White South Africans ( n = 195) endorsed perceptions of interpersonal racism more readily than perceptions of structural racism, and expressed high levels of competitive victimhood for perceived anti-White structural racism. Studies 2 ( n = 138) and 3 ( n = 85) showed that White participants at a historically White university responded with impaired perspective taking and intergroup empathy bias in response to people challenging structural disparities. Finally, reduced recognition of continuing structural racism predicted greater intergroup empathy bias, which, in turn, was associated with reduced willingness to engage in intergroup discussions about past harm (Study 3). We propose that greater acknowledgment of structural racism is necessary not only to surmount intergroup empathic failures, but also to transcend the socioeconomically unequal legacies of apartheid and beyond., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Fourie and Moore-Berg.)

Rational: Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic requires large-scale cooperation and behavior change on an unprecedented scale. Individuals can help reduce the burden of the pandemic by participating in behaviors that benefit people whose life circumstances make them especially vulnerable., Objective: We tested the effect of reading narrative (i.e., story-like) as opposed to expository (i.e., factual recounting) messages on beliefs about protecting others in groups vulnerable during the pandemic through increased message transportation (i.e. immersing the reader into the story). Additionally, we examined if reading narratives, as opposed to expository messages, increased intentions to engage in prosocial behaviors that benefit these groups through increased transportation., Methods: The study used a between-subjects design where participants either read narrative or expository messages about the experiences of people who were at greater exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to social and political factors, namely people who were incarcerated or working in healthcare during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: In line with pre-registered hypotheses, participants in the narrative (vs. expository) condition reported greater transportation into the message. We also observed indirect effects of narrative (vs. expository) messages, through increased message transportation, on: (1) beliefs that by physical distancing, one can protect vulnerable people (2) beliefs that members of the target groups (i.e., healthcare workers and people who are incarcerated), were vulnerable during the pandemic, (3) intentions to engage in prosocial behaviors that help family and friends, and (4) intentions to engage in prosocial behaviors that help members of vulnerable groups., Conclusion: Together these results suggest that narratives can be used to motivate prosocial action during the COVID-19 pandemic to the extent that the narratives elicit transportation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In 16 independent samples from five countries involving ~7,700 participants, we employ a mixture of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental methods to examine the effect of intergroup contact on (a) the blatant dehumanization of outgroups, and (b) the perception that outgroup members dehumanize the ingroup (meta-dehumanization). First, we conduct a meta-analysis across 12 survey samples collected from five countries regarding eight different target groups (total N = 5,388) and find a consistent effect of contact quality on dehumanization and meta-dehumanization. Second, we use a large longitudinal sample of American participants ( N = 1,103) to show that quality of contact with Muslims at Time 1 predicts dehumanization of Muslims and meta-dehumanization 6 months later. Finally, we show that sustained semester-long "virtual contact" between American and Muslim college students is associated with reduced American students' ( N = 487) dehumanization of, and perceived dehumanization by, Muslims.

Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest.

Objective: Evidence suggests that individuals without a history of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) are likely to view NSSI as a stigmatized behavior. However, there is limited evidence evaluating the presence of self-stigma among individuals who have engaged in NSSI., Methods: We recruited a university sample (n = 351) and employed implicit and explicit measures to examine the degree of stigmatization toward those with NSSI scarring, as compared to nonintentional disfigurement (i.e., accidental scarring) and to tattoos (i.e., a culturally sanctioned form of intentional tissue alteration). We examined the extent to which bias is related to indicators of NSSI severity among those with a history of NSSI., Results: We provide evidence that negative biases toward NSSI may represent the effects of self-stigma. However, findings suggest that biases were generally attenuated among participants with a history of NSSI as compared to those without. Participants who had lower levels of NSSI explicit bias were more likely to have a history of more severe engagement in NSSI; however, no significant relationships were found between implicit bias and NSSI severity indicators., Conclusions: We present a theoretical rationale for attenuated biases among individuals with a history of NSSI and discuss implications of this research for NSSI recovery., (© 2020 American Association of Suicidology.)

People's actions toward a competitive outgroup can be motivated not only by their perceptions of the outgroup, but also by how they think the outgroup perceives the ingroup (i.e., meta-perceptions). Here, we examine the prevalence, accuracy, and consequences of meta-perceptions among American political partisans. Using a representative sample ( n = 1,056) and a longitudinal convenience sample ( n = 2,707), we find that Democrats and Republicans equally dislike and dehumanize each other but think that the levels of prejudice and dehumanization held by the outgroup party are approximately twice as strong as actually reported by a representative sample of Democrats and Republicans. Overestimations of negative meta-perceptions were consistent across samples over time and between demographic subgroups but were modulated by political ideology: More strongly liberal Democrats and more strongly conservative Republicans were particularly prone to exaggerate meta-perceptions. Finally, we show that meta-prejudice and meta-dehumanization are independently associated with the desire for social distance from members of the outgroup party and support for policies that harm the country and flout democratic norms to favor the ingroup political party. This research demonstrates that partisan meta-perceptions are subject to a strong negativity bias with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the shadow of partisanship is much larger than it actually is, which fosters mutual intergroup hostility.

Objective: Despite the high prevalence of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), no research has systematically studied the occurrence and effects of stigmatization by others towards NSSI scarring., Methods: The current study measured implicit and explicit attitudes among undergraduates towards NSSI scarring using the implicit association test and questionnaires to compare implicit and explicit biases towards NSSI with biases towards tattoos, a culturally sanctioned form of self-determined marking, as well as nonintentional disfigurement., Results: Our study demonstrated strong negative implicit and explicit biases towards NSSI when comparing NSSI to tattoos and nonintentional disfigurement., Conclusions: Results extend previous research describing stigma towards mental illness and suggest a large negative bias towards NSSI. The importance of studying how stigma affects those who bear scarring from NSSI is discussed., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)