Does the Anticipation of Social Sanctions Reduce Out-Party Empathy?

• In Event: Understanding Intra-party Norms and Polarization

Abstract

Empathy between political opponents is widely regarded as the key to bridging political divides. However, empathy between out-partisans is rare. This lack, also known as empathy bias, has recently inspired a large body of research, as well as numerous societal efforts and public calls to promote empathy across party lines. While the significance of cross-partisan empathy in overcoming political divisions is well-established, there has been limited exploration of why cultivating such empathy proves challenging in the first place. Understanding these challenges is pivotal, as the effectiveness of initiatives promoting empathy between out-partisans hinges on the barriers that impede it. Without this fundamental insight, achieving empathy across the political divide remains a daunting challenge, if not an unattainable goal.
Existing research on empathy bias points to various barriers to empathizing with dissimilar others. This paper focuses on one factor that could play a particularly important role in the political sphere: (perceived) social norms to not empathize with those from the opposing party. Individuals may fear negative reactions from in-party members for showing an understanding of the other side. These anticipated social costs, including the prospect of negative evaluation, being labeled a traitor, punished, or even ostracized by their peers, may discourage individuals from understanding the thoughts and feelings of out-partisans.
To test these claims, two pre-registered studies were conducted in the U.S.-American context. Study 1 (observational, N = 1206) found that both self-identified Republicans and Democrats tend to underestimate the motivation of in-partisans to understand out-partisans while overestimating in-partisans’ disapproval of such understanding. Correlational analyses supported the hypothesis that partisans’ self-reported motivation to understand the other side decreases when they perceive in-partisans as less motivated and more disapproving of understanding out-partisans.
Study 2 (N = 1501) aimed to causally investigate whether partisans diminish their motivation to understand out-partisans when anticipating disapproval (vs. approval) from in-partisans. While the manipulation effectively altered perceptions of in-partisans’ disapproval of understanding out-partisans, there was no significant difference in partisans’ self-reported motivation to understand out-partisans comparing those who faced disapproval with those who faced approval. Surprisingly, in an exploratory comparison to the baseline, both, participants facing disapproval and participants facing approval increased the motivation to understand out-partisans. This is contrary to what the above theory would predict regarding those who anticipate in-party disapproval.
Participants’ emotional responses may explain the observed null effect between treatment groups as well as the increased motivation to understand out-partisans among those anticipating disapproval compared to baseline. An exploratory analysis found that those faced with in-partisans’ disapproval predominantly expressed disappointment, while those faced with in-partisans’ approval most strongly felt hopeful. This could indicate that understanding political opponents is perceived as a virtue. When individuals perceive that the in-party disapproves of this virtue, they react with disappointment and ultimately reject the behavior rather than conform to it.
In summary, this study suggests that learning about in-partisans’ disapproval of understanding out-partisans does not significantly reduce partisans’ self-reported motivations to understand the other side. Rather than leading to conformity, in-partisan disapproval of understanding out-partisans is met with disappointment, signaling rejection of these in-party dynamics. What remains unclear, however, is whether in-party disapproval influences the extent to which partisans openly express understanding towards the other side. As the studies relied solely on self-reported motivations and did not examine public expressions of understanding, the conclusions are limited to the former. This highlights the need for further research to investigate possible discrepancies between private attitudes and public behavior when facing in-party disapproval. It may be that there is a false enforcement of perceived in-party norms at work, with people engaging in public activities that they privately disapprove of. Importantly, however, the results indicate that it is possible to point out potentially polarizing and undemocratic dynamics within the in-party without encouraging attitudinal conformity that could exacerbate these tendencies.

Author

• Lea Pradella, Aarhus University