In a recent series of studies, researchers have uncovered that the way political opinions are expressed—especially the use of generic language—can significantly amplify perceived differences between political parties in the United States. By examining how statements about party beliefs are presented and perceived, the studies provide evidence that broad, sweeping statements contribute to a heightened sense of polarization among the public. The findings have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
The motivation for this research sprang from a desire to understand the mechanisms driving the increasing political polarization observed in the U.S. over recent years. With political deadlock becoming more common, and social trust at a low, identifying the factors that contribute to these divisions is crucial. The researchers were particularly interested in exploring how language — specifically the use of generics in political discourse — might play a role in exacerbating these divides, a factor previously overlooked in studies of political polarization.
“I have been interested in research on partisan polarization, both ideological and affective (feelings towards the outparty, regardless of ideology) for several years,” said study author Gustavo Novoa, a PhD candidate in political science at Columbia University.
“Political scientists and political psychologists have produced a large literature on why people have become so polarized, but the fact that language had not been discussed as a reason was interesting to me and my colleagues. We thought it might play a role and we wanted to bring together two research areas that in the past had been distant from one another: the study of generic language and the study of mass partisan polarization.”
Novoa and his colleagues conducted a series of three studies to investigate the impact of generic language.
Study 1: Endorsement of Generic Claims
In the first study, the researchers aimed to investigate how endorsements of generic political statements could influence perceptions of polarization between the two major U.S. political parties. The study enlisted 417 participants, who were evenly split between self-identified Democrats and Republicans.
These participants were presented with various political stances and asked to estimate the level of support for these stances within each party. Following this, they were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with generic statements that represented those stances, such as “Democrats believe that we are spending too little on space exploration programs” or “Republicans believe that the federal income tax they pay is too high.”
The researchers found that participants were prone to overestimating the support for a policy within the party named in the generic statement and underestimating it within the opposite party. This tendency led to a perceived gap between the parties that was wider than what actual public opinion polls suggested.
Even small differences in how much Democrats and Republicans supported various policies led people to make broad generalizations. For example, if Democrats slightly more often supported a policy than Republicans, people would conclude “Democrats believe X” and “Republicans do not believe X,” even if the difference in support was small. This highlighted the potent role of generic language in exaggerating perceived differences between political parties, suggesting that such language could be contributing to the polarization observed in the political landscape.
“I was surprised by how small differences in the perceived preferences between Republicans and Democrats translated into large differences in the language that was endorsed to describe them,” Novoa told PsyPost.
Study 2: Memory for Generic Claims
The second study focused on how people recall political information, specifically examining whether there’s a tendency to remember quantified statements as generics. This time, 928 participants, divided again between Democrats and Republicans, were presented with both generic and quantified (specific) statements attributed to politicians. After being distracted by a brief task, they were asked to recall these statements.
The outcome of this study underscored a significant bias towards recalling information in generic terms, regardless of how it was initially presented. This was true for both generic and quantified statements, indicating that people’s memories default to recalling political information in broad, sweeping terms. This finding suggests that the simplification of political messages into generic terms may be a cognitive process contributing to the reinforcement and transmission of polarized views, as it promotes a less nuanced understanding of party positions.
“This suggests that even if politicians are careful to use more nuanced language, people will often remember their claims as generic, and therefore draw polarized inferences,” said study co-author Susan Gelman.
Study 3: Polarized Interpretation of Generic Claims
In the third study, the researchers explored whether exposure to generic versus quantified statements about political parties leads to polarized judgments. With 422 participants involved, the study presented fictional political statements in three forms: generic, “many,” and “some,” related to both Democrats and Republicans. (For example, “Democrats support House Bill B.937,” “Many Republicans are in favor of Title 9854,” and “Some Democrats oppose hosting the International Design Exhibition event.”)
Participants were then asked to estimate how prevalent they believed these attitudes or beliefs were within each party.
The results revealed that generics led to significantly exaggerated prevalence estimates for the named party in the statement and minimized estimates for the unnamed, opposing party, thereby widening the perceived ideological gap between them. This effect was notably stronger for generic statements than for those quantified with “many” or “some,” demonstrating that generic language not only fosters polarized interpretations but does so more effectively than language that includes quantification.
This phenomenon suggests that the manner in which political information is communicated can significantly influence the perception of polarization, driving a wedge between the understanding of party positions even further.
Implications of the Findings
Together, these findings shed light on the powerful role language plays in political discourse. By demonstrating that the use of generic language can amplify perceived differences between political parties, the research suggests a potential pathway through which political polarization is maintained and even deepened.
The findings provide evidence “that the use of generic language, common in everyday speech, has the potential to be interpreted to mean extreme prevalences where they might not exist,” Novoa told PsyPost. “For example, you might find examples in the media that argue that Democratic voters are in favor of raising taxes. This is true only in the sense that Democratic voters favor raising taxes at a greater rate than Republican voters. In reality, neither Republican nor Democrat voters support higher taxes. However, you make the statement that Democrats support higher taxes and Republicans do not, most people will agree when surveyed.”
Limitations and Future Research
While these studies offer valuable insights, they also come with limitations. Primarily, the research was conducted within the context of the U.S. political system, a two-party framework that may not directly apply to countries with multiparty systems or different levels of polarization.
“Because we only studied the U.S. political context, we don’t know how similarly these findings apply in the political environments of other countries,” Novoa explained. “We also don’t know how generic language may affect the perception of intra-party subgroups.”
Furthermore, the focus on generics within political discourse leaves open questions about how these findings might translate to other domains or political environments. Future research could explore the operation of generics in non-political contexts, examine the effects in multiparty systems, and investigate whether these patterns of language use and perception are unique to polarized political landscapes or are more universally applicable.
“We are continuing this research and further exploring questions in this area,” Novoa said.
The study, “Generically partisan: Polarization in political communication“, was authored by Gustavo Novoa, Margaret Echelbarger, Andrew Gelman, and Susan A. Gelman.
