New research sheds light on the way in which we view people who disagree with us – and it has implications for all of us
It seems that we are becoming far less tolerant of those who hold different views from our own. In a world where corporations increasingly claim that they are looking to promote diversity of opinion along with psychological safety, this has important implications. So can we learn anything from the political sphere?
Much has been written recently about the growing gulf between people of different political persuasions. Whereas ten years ago or so people might have had their disagreement but kept the tone civil, these days, apparently the public is more likely to take a dim view of their opponents. They’re either stupid or just downright evil.
But is this really the case? Not according to new research from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. In the first of a number of studies, nearly 500 Americans were asked to identify themselves on a scale from very conservative to very liberal. They were then asked to think about conservatives or liberals in general before choosing from a number of adjectives to describe these groupings as individual people. Six of the adjectives related to stupidity – including words such as “illogical” or “unreasonable”, while six phrases were concerned with immorality, such as “bad moral character” and “willing to harm others”.
As you might imagine, the findings showed that participants tended to rate people with different political views as more stupid and immoral than those who shared their own beliefs. But the idea that opponents lacked intelligence was more common than a lack of morality.
Identity versus belief
In another study, participants were asked to rate the average Democrat or Republican supporter as thick or wicked, again using the adjectives mentioned above. You’ll notice here that the focus was more on political identity rather than political belief. Here too people regarded their own political grouping as less stupid and immoral than their political opponents.
However, the final experiment took a different approach. This time the participants were asked to say what they thought Democrats and Republicans think of one another – notice the emphasis on think here. The participants indicated how they believed their own political group saw the other group and vice versa. They were also asked about how they see themselves and how the other group sees themselves. They then provided their own ratings of their groups unintelligence and immorality and that of the other group.
Both Democrats and Republican participants in the experiment were correct in thinking that Republicans would see Democrats as more stupid than evil. However, they overestimated how damning these views were. Similarly, when asked, Democrats correctly believed that their fellow Democrats would see the Republicans as more unintelligent than immoral. The Republicans believed that their Democrat counterparts saw them as equally stupid and immoral. But here too they overestimated how negatively Democrats viewed them.
Our political opponents are kinder about us than we think
The upshot of this complex comparison of opinions and impressions is that you’d be wrong to assume that liberals regard conservatives as evil while conservatives see liberals as stupid. Instead, both tend to regard the other as lacking intelligence rather than morality. One encouraging aspect during these times of apparently increasing political intolerance is that people tend to overestimate how negatively their political opponents view them.
Analysing the implications of their findings and citing other experiments, the researchers talk about the “true self.” They explain: “People view morality as an essential part of one’s identity, more so than personality, memory, and cognitive faculties…one’s true self is who they are deep inside… while people condemn and dislike others for various reasons, there is strong evidence to suggest that they still see their true self as good…perhaps surprisingly, the main finding of the true-self literature, that people see each other as fundamentally good inside, extends even to disliked and distrusted outgroups.”
More empathy, more understanding
When our political opponents do something that we disapprove of or express a view that we dislike, we tend to assume that it’s because of external influences rather than any inherent wickedness, they argue.
So, when we’re having disagreements with colleagues, friends of family it’s worth reminding ourselves they’re not expressing views, opinions or preferences that we disapprove of because they’re evil, it’s because of those external influences. In other words, it’s because of the way in which they see the world and resulting from their experience of it.
Not many of us, of course, believe that the people who don’t share our opinion or that we disagree with are wicked. But we might be dismissive of their views or unwilling to engage with their ideas. Putting ourselves in their shoes and trying to understand how they’ve come to their point of view – let’s call it empathy – not only helps us to take a more tolerant, fair-minded view of our opponents’ beliefs but it could help us to reach a compromise or consensus and work more effectively with them.
