Recent research published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin sheds light on the role of belief systems in shaping partisan prejudice in the United States. The study reveals that while believing political ideologies are unchangeable (trait essentialism) reduces prejudice toward opposing parties, viewing political partisans as fundamentally different (social essentialism) has the opposite effect. These findings, based on six studies involving over 2,200 participants, highlight how these belief systems interact with blame attributions to drive political prejudice.
Partisan prejudice—negative attitudes and hostility toward members of the opposing political party—has escalated sharply in recent decades. This trend has far-reaching consequences, influencing not just voting behavior but also personal relationships, hiring decisions, and social cohesion. With political polarization at an all-time high, researchers sought to understand how cognitive frameworks like essentialist beliefs about political ideology and partisanship contribute to prejudice.
Essentialism refers to the belief that certain traits or characteristics are unchangeable and inherent. In this study, researchers focused on two types of essentialism: trait essentialism, which pertains to individual political ideologies, and social essentialism, which applies to groups such as political parties. They hypothesized that these two belief systems might predict prejudice in opposite ways. While trait essentialism could reduce prejudice by diminishing personal blame for political beliefs, social essentialism might amplify prejudice by reinforcing group stereotypes and animosity.
“I was motivated by the growing partisan prejudice and its far-reaching consequences beyond politics, affecting everyday life from relationships to workplaces. By examining how beliefs about the unchanging nature of political ideology and partisanship might exacerbate or mitigate prejudice, I hoped it might offer a promising approach to address this growing societal divide,” explained study author Crystal L. Hoyt of the University of Richmond.
The research team conducted six studies with a total of 2,231 participants, including Democrats and Republicans from diverse backgrounds. The studies employed surveys, experimental manipulations, and statistical analyses to explore the relationships between essentialist beliefs, blame attributions, and partisan prejudice.
Participants completed questionnaires measuring their levels of trait and social essentialism. For example, trait essentialism items assessed beliefs about the biological and immutable nature of political ideology, such as agreeing with statements like “Your political orientation is something that you can’t change.” Social essentialism was measured by agreement with statements like “Knowing that someone belongs to a particular political party tells us a lot about that person’s character.”
The researchers also assessed partisan prejudice through measures of negative emotions, trait evaluations, and warmth toward members of the opposing party. In addition, participants answered questions about how much they blamed opposing partisans for political strife and whether they attributed malicious intent to them.
To examine the impact of media messaging, the researchers exposed participants to articles emphasizing either the genetic basis of political ideology (intended to increase trait essentialism) or the shared values between Democrats and Republicans (designed to reduce social essentialism). A control group received no intervention.
Across all six studies, participants who believed that political ideologies are fixed and unchangeable (trait essentialism) were more likely to attribute political beliefs to uncontrollable factors like genetics. This reduced their tendency to blame individuals for their political views, resulting in lower levels of partisan prejudice.
In contrast, those who endorsed social essentialism—believing that Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally and inherently different—were more likely to stereotype opposing partisans and attribute negative characteristics and malicious intent to them. This heightened their levels of prejudice.
The researchers found that blame plays a key role in mediating the effects of essentialist beliefs on prejudice. For trait essentialism, the reduced attribution of responsibility for political beliefs helped to mitigate prejudice. Conversely, social essentialism was linked to increased prejudice by amplifying blame for political strife and fostering perceptions of malicious intent.
“While trait essentialism—the belief that political ideology is unchanging—and social essentialism—the belief that Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally different—are positively associated, they differentially predict partisan prejudice,” Hoyt told PsyPost. “Trait essentialism is linked to lower prejudice, while social essentialism predicts greater prejudice, with blame playing a central role in these relationships.”
The researchers also found evidence that media messaging can influence essentialist beliefs and prejudice. Participants who read an article emphasizing the genetic underpinnings of political ideology reported higher levels of trait essentialism and, subsequently, lower levels of prejudice. On the other hand, an article promoting shared values between Democrats and Republicans successfully reduced social essentialism, leading to lower prejudice levels. Importantly, these effects were indirect, mediated by changes in essentialist beliefs.
Interestingly, the link between trait essentialism and reduced prejudice was stronger among Democrats than Republicans. This finding suggests that the impact of essentialist beliefs on prejudice may vary depending on political and cultural context.
“Media messaging has the potential to reduce partisan prejudice,” Hoyt said. “Messages that emphasize shared values between Republicans and Democrats can decrease social essentialist beliefs, fostering more positive attitudes across party lines.”
The study, “Partisan Prejudice: The Role of Beliefs About the Unchanging Nature of Ideology and Partisans,” was authored by Crystal L. Hoyt, Jeni L. Burnette, and Meghan Moore.
