Summary: A recent study challenges the idea that culture is as divided as many people think, demonstrating that divisions frequently result from the general consensus within one’s own social lines. Researchers discovered a novel way to distinguish true opinion differences from how divided people perceive society.
Even when societal perceptions are less divided, the findings indicate that people tend to perceive greater polarization outside of their circle when inward groups have strong disagreements. By influencing more democratic consensus and shifting ideas, understanding these personal “political lenses” may help to lessen fragmentation.
Important Information
- Personal Lenses: Interdependence within social circles can cause a wider society to appear more divided than it actually is.
- Novel Method: Experts distinguished true polarization from perceived fragmentation in view data.
- Policy Relevance: Negative perceptions of division does restrict cooperation on pressing social issues like climate change.
Origin: Complexity Science Hub
Are people’s views on contentious social issues as polarized as they appear to be?
In a study just published in PNAS Nexus, researchers from the University of California Merced, Complexity Science Hub, ( CSH), the ( ZMT ), Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Research, and ( ZMT ) from Bremen have addressed this issue.
There is a common belief that society is splintering into opposing groups, giving the impression that intellectual divides are growing, for instance on issues like climate change, immigration, and public health.
In light of this, previous clinical research attempted to determine the degree of disagreement between different viewpoints, frequently with contradictory outcomes. The robust and realistic perception of polarization is explored in their new study by Paul E. Smaldino ( University of California Merced ), Peter Steiglechner ( CSH, formerly ZMT ), Agostino Merico ( ZMT ), and Peter Steiglechner ( CSH, formerly ZMT ).
When we consider contested social issues, we frequently have the feeling that those in our inner social circles, such as our families, friends, or political in-groups, hold generally congruent and often even convergent viewpoints.
Nevertheless, we occasionally get the impression that nation is divided in general. This unsettling understanding may not always be accurate,” says second author Peter Steiglechner.  ,
New Approach for Defending What Is Realized From True Polarization
In this new study, the authors show a way to separate exact from intuitively perceived fragmentation in experimental mind data from previous empirical studies that focused on goal measures of judgment divergence.
The authors use the analogy of a social “loop” lens, a fictional gadget, or point of view, through which individuals examine a set of opinions, to describe the mathematical foundations of the method in an accessible way. This subjective perspective “reflects the multiply of views within a person’s internal group.”  ,
Steiglechner explains that the more widely spread these viewpoints on a given subject, the “healer” the glass and the less dissented the broader world is from that subject.
The” thinner” the lens, the narrower the spread in one’s inner circle, the broader society is perceived as. ”  ,
Consensus Within One’s Circle You Embellish Polarization Perceptions ,
Personal, social lenses change over time, and how one perceives polarization is affected by this dynamic.
The outcomes demonstrate that perception of polarization can even be affected by the dynamics of disagreement within identity groups ( and thus the lens ) as much as it does by actual divergence of opinion in society as a whole.
In other words, the more my inward group and I can agree on issues like climate change, the more I can think polarized on a larger societal level, and vice versa. Agostino Merico, the study’s co-author, claims.
The polarization these parties perceive can also deviate significantly because this powerful ranges between political parties.  ,
In the end, people don’t even have to believe on issues like how divided they are or how divergent they are, according to Peter Steiglechner.
Intellectual Polarization: More Than Just a Perceived Experience
According to the authors, the investigation offers a fresh perspective on determining and determining the amount of polarization.
It is crucial to understand the social and psychological mechanisms underlying these phenomena, says Paul Smaldino, the various co-author of the investigation, when increased fragmentation coincides with destructive social or political developments like the drop of social unity or the fall of dictatorship.
In Peter Steiglechner’s opinion,” cultural fragmentation – or the view of it – influences policymaking on issues like climate change, foods crises, or environmental protection, and possibly impairs the search for discussion and the implementation of solutions in a political way. Our study demonstrates that a shift in perspective is necessary to lessen polarization.
The German Research Foundation provided funding for it as part of the priority program” Sea Level and Society.”
About this news item about social neuroscience
Author: Eliza Muto
Source: Complexity Science Hub
Contact: Eliza Muto – Complexity Science Hub
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original research: Free of charge.
Agostino Merico et al.,” How group differences in opinion can affect how people perceive ideological polarization..” PNAS Nexus
Abstract
How group differences in opinion can affect how people perceive ideological polarization.
There is a common perception that society has been divided into increasingly divergent viewpoints. Numerous studies have attempted to quantify the degree of ideological polarization, typically utilizing differences between self-reported opinions, and have come with contradictory conclusions.
We suggest that the inconsistency can be attributed to how people’s subjective perceptions are affected by their social identities. We develop a formal framework for analyzing opinion data to explain these asymmetric, dynamic perceptions.
When members of an in-group become more uniform on a given subject ( i .e., when the group’s overall opinion is less dissimilar ), they begin to see deviant opinions as getting more distant from their own.
In consequence, these individuals might perceive more polarization than a subjective, objective observer might.
We demonstrate that perceived polarization may depend just as much on the dynamics of in-group variance as it does on actual opinion divergence in society when we apply the framework to data on Germans ‘ opinions of climate change.
Additionally, we demonstrate that the direction of this effect may vary depending on the political parties.
Unabhängig of social segregation, polarization-enforcering cognitive biases, or affect-driven attitudes toward outside groups, our framework provides an explanation for why people might occasionally perceive higher levels of ideological polarization than surveys suggest.
