Today, across a series of international polls, America is found to be one of the most politically divided societies in the world.
While being open to opposing views is often seen as a positive trait, a new study suggests the opposite holds true with U.S. politics today. Across a number of experiments, the researchers found that being receptive to out-party information sources leads to negative in-party reputational costs. The experiments tested different types of information sources on 8 different issues, with both weak signs of receptiveness, (e.g., following a social media account or reading an online article) and strong (e.g., going to a lecture or attending an in-person rally).
This finding presents a challenge for those in the business of political bridge-building. How, then, can we signal receptiveness to the other side while minimizing these consequences to our reputation? The study contains a useful tip: it found that reputational costs can be attenuated – or even reversed – when the out-party information sources are considered “non-prototypical,” or unlike most out-party members either through physical appearance, behavior, word choice, or other cues. In other words, openness to opposing views has fewer negative consequences when the source of the information does not fit the mold of what the other side usually looks like.
In sum, bridgebuilders should be aware of how openness to the other side can result in losing social currency within ingroups - and how this might be mitigated to better motivate engagement in bridge-building work.
Hussein, M. A., & Wheeler, S. C. (2023, February 3). Reputational Costs of Receptiveness: When and Why Being Receptive to Opposing Political Views Backfires. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qr26x