Political polarization inhibits cooperativeness with others, according to new research that examined the behavioral consequences of feelings of hate and love for Donald J. Trump. The findings have been published in Management Science.
“Given the ongoing political polarization in the United States, I wanted to explore the factors that influence the way people think and behave when it comes to political identities,” explained Eugen Dimant, the author of the study and an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
“I was particularly interested in understanding how social norms, or the unwritten rules that guide our behavior, can contribute to or help reduce polarization. By studying this topic, I hope to provide valuable insights that can help bring people together and create a more unified society.”
The study investigated the extent to which political polarization affects social interactions and explored possible solutions from a behavioral science perspective. The study involved a total of 15 preregistered experiments with 8,647 participants conducted between the summer of 2020 and early 2021.
The study used two economic decision-making games — the Dictator Game and Public Goods Game — to study altruism, cooperativeness, and norm perceptions.
The Dictator Game involves two people: the person who is in charge (called the dictator) and the person who receives something from the dictator (called the recipient). In the usual game, the dictator gets some money or other resources, and has to decide how much to give to the recipient, if any at all. The recipient doesn’t get to make any decisions.
But in the version used in this study, both the dictator and the recipient start with some money. The dictator still has the option to give some or all of their money to the recipient, but they also have an extra option: they can take some or all of the recipient’s money away. This allowed the researcher to assess both when people choose to share their resources (prosocial behavior), and when people choose to take away someone else’s resources (antisocial behavior).
In the Public Goods Game, each player starts with $10 and can choose to keep the money for themselves or contribute some or all of it to a shared public good. The amount contributed by each player is multiplied by 1.5 and then split equally between the two players, regardless of their individual contributions. In the game, players benefits the most when they both fully contribute to the public good. However, a player can get more for themselves by not contributing anything and letting the other player contribute.
The study employed various experimental conditions, including Trump Prime, Minimal Group Prime, Biden Prime, Sports Prime, Default Nudge and Information Nudge, to examine how political polarization impacted people’s behavior in these two games.
In the Trump Prime, participants were asked about their feelings towards Donald Trump. They were paired with another participant who either loved or hated Trump, and were asked to choose how close they felt to that person using a standard tool in social psychology called the “Inclusion of Other in the Self” scale.
In the Minimal Group Prime, participants were asked to rate their opinion of Trump. They were asked to indicate their preference for different paintings and were paired with another participant based on their painting preferences.
The Biden Prime and Sports Prime reflected the Trump Prime and the Minimal Group Prime, with Biden replacing Trump and sports preferences replacing art preferences, respectively.
In the Default Nudge, when participants had to decide how much money to give to their partner, the option to give $2.5 was already selected for them. This was important because it was the only option that resulted in an equal split between the giver and receiver. In the Information Nudge, participants were informed that many others had been generous in previous games and had achieved an equal split by giving $2.5, even if their partner had a different opinion of Trump.
The study provided evidence that political polarization causes people to see others as either part of their group (ingroup) or not part of their group (outgroup). This differentiation was only observed in the Trump Prime condition and not in the Minimal Group Paradigm condition. In the Trump Prime condition, participants felt closer to those who shared their views of Trump and were more likely to be cooperative with them.
“The paper demonstrates that political polarization affects social preferences and can lead to outgroup-hate, which means disliking people from opposing political groups,” Dimant told PsyPost. “Differentiating between the types of existing polarization, such as ingroup-love and outgroup-hate, is crucial for designing more targeted and effective interventions.”
The participants were less cooperative with people in the outgroup. The researchers found that this was not because the participants were unwilling to cooperate with others from different groups, but rather because they expected those people to be unwilling to cooperate with them. The findings were not limited to attitudes towards Trump, but also applied to opinions on Biden and sports fandom.
“Social norms play a significant role in influencing people’s behavior, and understanding the impact of these norms can help design interventions to reduce polarization,” Dimant said.
The two nudges tested in the study improved participants’ willingness to cooperate, but did not reduce the polarization gap between groups, suggesting that nudges have a limited impact in highly polarized contexts.
“Norm nudges, or interventions that use social norms to encourage behavior change, can be effective in addressing political polarization, but their success depends on the clarity of the norm message. The study highlights the need for combining light-touch behavioral interventions with more forceful strategies, like education and inter-group contact, to effectively reduce political polarization,” Dimant said.
The study provides insights into the negative effects of political polarization on social interactions and suggests possible solutions from a behavioral science perspective. The findings may be useful for policymakers and individuals seeking to promote cooperation and reduce polarization. As with any study, however, the research includes some limitations.
“In terms of caveats, this study focused on two stylized (though potent) decision-environments at the time of Trump’s failed re-election,” Dimant told PsyPost. “To really understand the multifacetedness of polarization, one has to test across various contexts and different points in time. In terms of next steps, the effectiveness of interventions that combine light-touch behavioral interventions with more forceful strategies in reducing polarization is an empirical question that future research can hopefully address.”
“Tackling political polarization requires using many different approaches that combine small changes in behavior with larger, more powerful actions,” the researcher added. “This can include education, creating opportunities for people from different political groups to interact, and making sure there are safe places for people to share their opinions. By understanding the many factors that contribute to political polarization, we can produce better ways to address this challenging issue.”
The study, “Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences“, was published February 24, 2023.
