The prevailing understanding of political polarization is missing a key attribute that could have a dramatic effect in reducing the rising tide of political violence in the United States and beyond, new research shows.

A new paper authored by Rotman School of Management associate professor Spike Lee — titled “Explanations of and interventions against affective polarization cannot afford to ignore the power of ingroup norm perception” — expands the existing understanding of the root causes of polarization, and offers an opportunity to more effectively address it.

Perceptions of the in-group vs. the out-group

Historically, research into the field has focused on “outgroup meta-perceptions,” or how one thinks those of different political stripes perceives them (for example, how a Republican believes Democrats feel about Republicans.)

That previous research has guided much of the efforts for reducing political polarization, Lee says, but his most recent research suggests that’s only part of the equation.

“People’s meta-perception tends to be exaggerated; they tend to exaggerate how badly the other side feels about their side,” Lee says.

In re-evaluating the existing data, and by running trials of their own, Lee and his students have discovered that dynamics within one’s own political group often play a greater role in dictating their degree of polarization and willingness to commit political violence.

In fact, the research suggests that those who mistakenly perceive that their party holds extreme views are far more likely to endorse political violence than those who don’t. In other words, even if your political group is not extreme, if you believe it to be so then you’re more likely to endorse violence against a different political group. 

Previously thought to be a major factor, how one side believes the other views them has no direct impact, the research also found.

“It turns out the in-group norm perception matters a lot more than the meta-perception,” Lee says. “If people think, ‘our side really hate the other side,’ that has an even stronger predicative effect on political violence.”

Identity politics

Lee explains that in-group dynamics are so significant in our hyper-polarized world because politics are often less a matter of tangible policy decisions and more a matter of personal identity and belonging.

“When we are thinking about politics, it’s about wanting to fit into a social network,” he says. “We want to feel like we are part of this force that is on the right side of history; that in-group identity looms large in politics.”

While believing that the other side has a horrible perception of your attitudes and beliefs can drive some to endorse or engage in political violence, Lee’s research suggests the voices within one’s own circle of influence are far more significant. “People are more driven by where they want to belong than who they want to fight against.”

Fighting polarization with facts

Though facts don’t always settle political arguments, they can help address political violence.

Lee explains that there is a strong existing body of research proving that simply dispelling myths about how those with differing views feel about their political opponents can go a long way in addressing polarization and willingness to commit political violence.

“When you correct people’s wrong meta-perceptions — you tell them, ‘We’ve done a bunch of surveys, and these are the actual responses. You think they hate you at a level 10 intensity but it’s really more like five’ — correcting that perception reduces the toxicity in partisan relations,” he says. “That’s the existing findings.”

Lee’s research has also proven that the same strategy works when correcting misconceptions about how one’s own political group feels about the other. “It’s basically the same kind of intervention that the meta-perception researchers have been doing,” he says. “Except that you don’t present information about how the outgroup views the in-group; Instead, you present information about how the in-group feels towards the out-group.”

Lee explains that social media is designed to amplify the most extreme voices on either side, leading many to believe those more severe views are representative of the majority on both sides.

Research, however, suggests most are closer to the political middle than what they see online. Dispelling that myth, Lee says, is likely to have a significant impact on reducing political polarization.

Finding a common cause

Whether in politics, business, family groups or even romantic partnerships, the research suggests the best way to get people of different ideologies to work together is through a shared goal.

“The best way to overcome divisions is to unite people together against something that will threaten all of them, or to unite around a common vision,” Lee says, pointing to the recent rise in Canadian unity in the wake of President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada’s sovereignty as a prime example.

“If you really want to motivate employees to get together, find something that applies to everybody equally,” he says. “When people have a shared vision that they all believe in — which might have nothing to do with politics — they will ignore their differences and gravitate towards it.”

Enjoy this article? For more insights and research into polarization and political behaviour, subscribe to the Rotman Insights Hub.