In the run-up to the US election, Republican and Democratic voters are often described as deeply divided. But our new research suggests that these perceptions are exaggerated and that these groups are actually overwhelmingly similar in the values they hold as most important.
Showing Republican and Democratic voters these similarities helps to bridge the divide, increases trust in the other group, and inspires hope about the future, our research shows.
We found that while Republicans and Democrats are assumed to have very different opinions, they often have overwhelmingly similar views about what they find important in life. Across 2,529 voters that we polled, the groups showed around 90% agreement on fundamental values such as freedom, security or helpfulness. Only around 5% of the extreme voters on either side of the political spectrum tended to hold clearly different values.
Other evidence shows that this cross-group agreement also emerges on typically divisive issues. For example, many Republicans and Democrats agree on the importance of democracy and they have similar views on the moral acceptability of issues such as use of contraception.
Disappearing divide
The deep division between Republican and Democratic voters is widely discussed. Around eight in ten supporters for both parties express concern about this division and perceive the divide to be growing.
This division is particularly relevant in the run-up to the US election. The constant emphasis in social media and everyday political discourse on extreme viewpoints and an “us versus them” mindset only helps to further entrench the groups, and not consider other points of view.
Research sometimes also plays a role by emphasising small differences between groups while neglecting similarities. Differences are often more newsworthy than similarities, but ignoring the similarities means that the vast majority of responses are brushed under the carpet.
Why should we care about perceived division? There is evidence that people increasingly dislike the other side, avoid interactions with them, and feel a dwindling sense of hope about the future of the US.
What happens if Democrats and Republicans are alerted to their similarities? Can we correct perceptions of deep division and bring the groups closer together? To answer these questions, we conducted three experiments with more than 2,500 Republican and Democratic voters.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. One group of participants was shown charts displaying so-called “overlapping distributions” (like those in the right-hand panel in the chart below). These accurately display similarities and differences between the groups on a number of issues.
The light green shaded area and the percentage represents the amount of overlap between the groups. Only the yellow and dark green areas represent the amount of actual differences.
Two groups of participants were shown so-called “barplots” (like those in the left-hand panel in the chart above). These highlight differences between the groups for particular issues but ignore similarities. The bars show the average importance attached to a value by each group, but they ignore the variability and thus overlap between the groups.
These barplots are commonly used in social science research. Participants assigned to the control group received no information about the two groups.
We found that Republicans and Democrats perceived each other to be more similar when they saw overlapping distributions rather than barplots or no information. It is hence possible (and easy) to correct overblown perceptions of division in US society.
Our other findings show why correcting these misperceptions is important.
The strongest effects we found emerged around ideas of hope about the future of the US. Participants who saw overlapping distributions expressed more hope in open-ended comments. For example, a participant commented:
I think [the presented information] is positive. It shows we are more similar [than] different. Most people want the same things regardless of political affiliation. When you really look at both political parties, [we] are closer than we think. This is so important to get both sides to work together and not be so divided.
We also found that participants felt more hope because they saw US society as more cohesive. They also perceived greater potential for compromise with the other group and trusted the other group more.
These findings suggest that people typically feel a sense of hopelessness about the future because they see the country as deeply divided. And reducing this perceived division can help inspire new hope.
Seeing true similarity information may hence be an optimistic signal that there is a way to find compromise and build a better future, eliciting expressions of hope. These effects are particularly valuable in the face of growing pessimism in the US, and evidence that hope promotes positive societal change and mental and physical health.
These findings are also significant because they could help open up cross-party conversations and bring progress on divisive issues. People often avoid cross-party discussion because they expect conflict and deadlock, thwarting attempts for compromise from the start.
A simple change in our emphasis to acknowledge both similarities and differences could start the process of breaking down mutual avoidance and bring societal progress and cohesion.
Important questions remain however. Chief among these is how robust and long-lasting the effects are. A brief, one-off intervention is unlikely to bring lasting change.
An important next step will be to test whether repeated exposure to information that groups often hold similar views can produce lasting improvements for society and people. This test could help pave the way for adopting a more balanced approach in social science research and media reporting.
Paul Hanel does not have or had any grant that are related to the research described in this article.
Lukas J. Wolf has received funding from UK Research and Innovation which paid for a part of the described research. The funder had no say in the aims or design of the research.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
