数据可视化的方式如何影响和纠正对政治两极化的(错误)认知。

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL British Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1111/bjso.12787
JonRobert Tartaglione, Lee de-Wit
{"title":"数据可视化的方式如何影响和纠正对政治两极化的(错误)认知。","authors":"JonRobert Tartaglione,&nbsp;Lee de-Wit","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While the mechanisms underlying polarization are complex, scholars have consistently found a pervasive overestimation of <i>perceptions</i> of polarization to be a contributing factor. We argue that one mitigation strategy that can work at scale to address such misperceptions might be relatively straightforward: better data visualizations of cross-party attitudes on key issues. In a large-scale (<i>N</i> = 6603), international replication, we find that <i>mode of presentation</i>—or the manner in which data are visually presented—plays a significant role in moderating perceptions of polarization, even for longstanding, divisive issues for which partisans would likely hold strong prior beliefs. Additionally, we find the effects that different modes of presentation have on issue-specific polarization also extend to participant beliefs about <i>overall</i> interparty polarization, with certain modes proving capable of not only promoting less polarized views but also enabling more accurate estimates of the extent to which political groups agree. Finally, our findings also suggest that the manner in which intergroup data are visualized may also exert influence over the degree to which political groups are <i>essentialized—</i>a finding with implications for not only political perception but also for apolitical social psychological phenomena such as dehumanization.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12787","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How the manner in which data is visualized affects and corrects (mis)perceptions of political polarization\",\"authors\":\"JonRobert Tartaglione,&nbsp;Lee de-Wit\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjso.12787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While the mechanisms underlying polarization are complex, scholars have consistently found a pervasive overestimation of <i>perceptions</i> of polarization to be a contributing factor. We argue that one mitigation strategy that can work at scale to address such misperceptions might be relatively straightforward: better data visualizations of cross-party attitudes on key issues. In a large-scale (<i>N</i> = 6603), international replication, we find that <i>mode of presentation</i>—or the manner in which data are visually presented—plays a significant role in moderating perceptions of polarization, even for longstanding, divisive issues for which partisans would likely hold strong prior beliefs. Additionally, we find the effects that different modes of presentation have on issue-specific polarization also extend to participant beliefs about <i>overall</i> interparty polarization, with certain modes proving capable of not only promoting less polarized views but also enabling more accurate estimates of the extent to which political groups agree. Finally, our findings also suggest that the manner in which intergroup data are visualized may also exert influence over the degree to which political groups are <i>essentialized—</i>a finding with implications for not only political perception but also for apolitical social psychological phenomena such as dehumanization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48304,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12787\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12787\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12787","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然两极分化的内在机制十分复杂,但学者们一直发现,对两极分化看法的普遍高估是一个促成因素。我们认为,一种可以大规模解决这种误解的缓解策略可能相对简单:对跨党派在关键问题上的态度进行更好的数据可视化。在一项大规模(N = 6603)的国际复制研究中,我们发现数据的呈现方式--或者说数据可视化呈现的方式--在缓和两极分化认知方面发挥着重要作用,即使是在党派人士可能持有强烈先验信念的长期分裂性问题上也是如此。此外,我们发现不同的呈现方式对特定问题两极分化的影响也会延伸到参与者对党派间整体两极分化的看法上,某些呈现方式不仅能促进观点两极分化程度的降低,还能更准确地估计政治团体达成一致的程度。最后,我们的研究结果还表明,群体间数据可视化的方式也可能对政治群体被本质化的程度产生影响--这一发现不仅对政治认知有影响,而且对非政治性的社会心理现象(如非人化)也有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How the manner in which data is visualized affects and corrects (mis)perceptions of political polarization

While the mechanisms underlying polarization are complex, scholars have consistently found a pervasive overestimation of perceptions of polarization to be a contributing factor. We argue that one mitigation strategy that can work at scale to address such misperceptions might be relatively straightforward: better data visualizations of cross-party attitudes on key issues. In a large-scale (N = 6603), international replication, we find that mode of presentation—or the manner in which data are visually presented—plays a significant role in moderating perceptions of polarization, even for longstanding, divisive issues for which partisans would likely hold strong prior beliefs. Additionally, we find the effects that different modes of presentation have on issue-specific polarization also extend to participant beliefs about overall interparty polarization, with certain modes proving capable of not only promoting less polarized views but also enabling more accurate estimates of the extent to which political groups agree. Finally, our findings also suggest that the manner in which intergroup data are visualized may also exert influence over the degree to which political groups are essentialized—a finding with implications for not only political perception but also for apolitical social psychological phenomena such as dehumanization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.
期刊最新文献
Psychological needs related to civil inattention: A qualitative and quantitative view on public encounters Cues of trait dominance elicit inferences of psychological ownership Issue Information Memorials and collective memory: A text analysis of online reviews Registered report: Cognitive ability, but not cognitive reflection, predicts expressing greater political animosity and favouritism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1