In-group perceptions play outsized role in driving political extremism, according to study

Reducing the rising tide of political extremism—and violence—in the United States and beyond may require a rethinking of how we understand the forces that drive polarization, according to a study from the University of Toronto.

Historically, researchers have focused on “out-group meta-perceptions,” or how individuals believe they are perceived by those with opposing political views—for example, how a U.S. Republican thinks Democrats view Republicans.

But Spike Lee, an associate professor at the Rotman School of Management, says 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,” says Lee, who is cross-appointed to the department of psychology in the Faculty of Arts & Science.

In the study based on both a reevaluation of existing data and new trials, Lee and his students found that perceptions within one’s own political group play an even greater role in shaping polarization and the willingness to endorse political violence. Specifically, individuals who mistakenly believe their own party holds extreme views are far more likely to support political violence than those who do not. The findings are published in the journal PNAS Nexus.

In other words, if you perceive your party as extreme—even if that perception is inaccurate—you’re more likely to support violence against an opposing political group.

The research also found that perceptions of how the “other side” views your party have no direct impact—a departure from conventional thinking in the field.

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

Identity politics

Lee adds that in-group dynamics are especially influential at a time when politics are increasingly tied to personal identity and belonging, rather than policy differences.

“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.

“People are more driven by where they want to belong than who they want to fight against.”

Fighting polarization with facts

While facts may settle few political arguments these days, Lee believes they can still help reduce political violence.

He points to a body of research showing that correcting misconceptions about how people with opposing views feel about each other can significantly reduce polarization and the willingness to endorse 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.

Lee’s research shows 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 out-group views the in-group; Instead, you present information about how the in-group feels towards the out-group.”

Lee also notes that social media, which is designed to amplify the most extreme voices, distorts users’ perceptions of the majority’s actual beliefs on both sides. Dispelling that myth, he says, could have a significant impact.

Finding a common cause

Another way to combat political extremism, Lee suggests, is by rallying people around 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,” he 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.

“When people have a shared vision that they all believe in … they will ignore their differences and gravitate towards it.”