The Science of Polarization and Insights for Bridge-building
This post is written by Nichole Argo Ben Itzhak, Director of Research and Field Advancement at Over Zero. This piece is adapted from a presentation to PACE members and grantees given during our Member Meeting in November 2019. Much of the content in this blog draws upon a recent report by Over Zero and New America.
Many PACE members and partners are all-too familiar with the challenges posed by polarization today. Looking at it through a scientific lens, however, can help. Science reveals valuable insights about the nature and impact of modern-day polarization. It can also illuminate effective tools for bridge-building.
The Problem of Toxic Polarization
Why is polarization in the U.S. unique today? The American public has been deeply divided on issues before, but as Lilliana Mason argues, today’s toxic polarization is less about issues and more about how we feel about those on the other end of the political spectrum. This has come about through a process called social sorting, whereby our personal identities — such as religion, ethnicity or race — have become increasingly aligned with partisan ones. Now, with our very identities at stake, dialogue and compromise become more difficult; hyperpartisan discussion often devolves into absolutist, moralistic rhetoric; and politics feels zero-sum. According to new research by Lilliana Mason and Nathan Kalmoe, 70% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats see the other party as a “serious threat to the United States and its people.” The same research shows nine percent of Republicans and Democrats say that, in general, violence is at least occasionally acceptable. However, when imagining an electoral loss in 2020, larger percentages of both parties approve of the use of violence — 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans.
Second, hyperpolarization is not happening in a vacuum. It interacts with three other major risk factors for political violence in the U.S. that have been moving along a negative trendline. They are: elite factionalization (where parties begin to view politics as a “winner-takes-all” and maneuver in ways to benefit their own group even at the expense of the collective, democratic institutions, etc.); a rise in public hate rhetoric and dangerous speech; and, the weakening of US institutions. Moreover — with the upcoming 2020 elections, the continued incidence of group-targeted attacks, and the impeachment inquiry — we are entering into a period of additional stressors and triggers for violence. The time to prevent violence and increase resilience in the U.S. is now.
The Science of Social Identity
One tool commonly used towards this end is bridge-building. Most mainstream approaches to bridge-building focus on overcoming individual biases (e.g., fear, hate, hard values), but it might be more useful to look at how humans are, literally, designed for sociality — be it to induce cooperation (trade) or defense (war, competition). Indeed, the biases that stem from our social identities are the ones that matter when we seek to build bridges between groups. Here are a few things we know about social identity: Individuals attach to groups out of a need for self-esteem and worth, and their need for attachment grows under conditions of uncertainty or threat. Once within a group, or a social identity, we tend to favor our own group members over others (often without even knowing it), and we see our own group members as more human, and able to feel more complex emotions. Further, we take greater risks within a group identity than we would as individuals; we perceive events and groups around us — and feel emotions in reaction to them — through our social identity lens rather than our individual one; and we are very susceptible to the norms within our social group (what other members or leaders in the group approve of or are doing). Lastly, in situations of inter-group competition or threat — be it real threat such as job or power competition, or symbolic threats to our group identity or values — we tend to denigrate, dehumanize, and even aggress against out-group members to a greater extent than we would as individuals. Under such threat conditions, escalation can occur quickly: Our own social identity often rigidifies, strengthening and propagating an “us vs. them” lens towards the world. With members of our group focused on protecting the group, the sense of threat (rightly or wrongly) becomes compounded and outgroup members are increasingly perceived as suspicious, guilty, or aggressive. Meanwhile, stances and actions deemed “protective” of the ingroup are rewarded with praise and status within the group.
Many types of intergroup bias grow naturally out of the principles described above. Below, we illustrate just a few:
(a) Meta-perceptions: We tend to reciprocate the feelings or perceptions that we think outgroup members have of us. So, if we think they dehumanize our group, we are more likely to dehumanize them. Similarly, if we think they hate our culture, we devalue theirs.
(b) Motive misattribution: We tend to think our own group members act out of love for their group, but ascribe the same act by an outgroup member as motivated by hate. (Importantly, while this is a default setting, merely activating critical thinking skills can correct it.)
(c) Value perceptions: We distance ourselves from other groups when we think they value harm or fairness differently than our group. However, our perceptions of how others value harm or fairness are influenced by perceived competition or threat.
(d) Collective blame: Since our brains process groups as entities rather than complicated collections of heterogenous individuals, we also have a propensity to blame an entire group for the acts of a few (e.g., the idea that “Muslims” were responsible for 9/11).
Opportunities for Bridge-Building
Understanding social identity and the ways it influences within-group and inter-group dynamics also provides insights into how bridge-building can best be accomplished — which, surprisingly, means looking beyond cross-group work to focus on work within groups as well. Here and in our report, we describe three effective types of interventions: a) shaping in-group norms, b) bolstering new or cross-cutting identities, and c) building coalitions that include targeted communities for engagement and response. Shaping within-group norms is important because science shows us that perceived norms often predict human behavior more than individual beliefs or attitudes. It can be done with programming that identifies, elevates and amplifies the voices of “in-group moderates” (leaders who support inclusion and tolerance, regardless of their political positions), as well as those who leverage over-arching or cross-cutting identities (showing that they accept, value and endorse relationships between groups). Institutions can further help by connecting such leaders together and empowering them with resources to build platforms and coalitions. The first focus in forming coalitions should be on developing a common, overarching goal, and prioritizing relationship and trust building. Second, and especially in high-risk areas where the coalition might serve as an early warning and rapid response network, it is critical to act early: developing trust and productivity is far easier before violence breaks out.
One example of an organization utilizing both this science and these tools in its bridge-building work is the One America Movement. It first brings diverse leaders and groups together in an attempt to activate cross-cutting identities, often conservative Evangelical churches working with synagogues and/or mosques. Then, the groups set explicit, organically derived goals around developing and amplifying positive norms and undermining us-them divides. Local chapters take action together towards common goals — often, as in the case of countering opioid abuse — on issues that are relevant across dividing lines.
In closing, for actors who seek to build bridges amidst polarization, using the lens of social identity and intergroup dynamics can enable you to better understand what may be able to be controlled or “nudged”, and what cannot. Bridge-building efforts focused on the end-goals of fostering “bipartisanship” or “civility” will likely not be sufficient — neither approach can address the animus, process, or power of intergroup bias. Instead, science points to interventions focused on building societal interconnections to solve problems (particularly relationships built across power and difference), and the bolstering of leaders and messages that amplify norms of tolerance and inclusion.
Dr. Nichole Argo Ben Itzhak is the Director of Research and Field Advancement at Over Zero, an organization that supports societies to resist division and create long-term resilience to identity-based violence. Nichole’s role is to bring the latest science to the design and evaluation of interventions to reduce group-targeted harm, and in parallel, to help feed intervention results back into basic science. A social psychologist by training, Nichole holds degrees from Stanford, MIT and the New School for Social Research. Her forthcoming book is titled: Rethinking Today’s Human Bombs: Understanding and Defusing Motivations for Political Violence (Beacon Press, 2020).
