人们认为政治对手接受了公然的道德错误,从而加剧了党派分歧。

IF 2.2 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PNAS nexus Pub Date : 2024-07-16 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244
Curtis Puryear, Emily Kubin, Chelsea Schein, Yochanan E Bigman, Pierce Ekstrom, Kurt Gray
{"title":"人们认为政治对手接受了公然的道德错误,从而加剧了党派分歧。","authors":"Curtis Puryear, Emily Kubin, Chelsea Schein, Yochanan E Bigman, Pierce Ekstrom, Kurt Gray","doi":"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This \"basic morality bias\" is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.</p>","PeriodicalId":74468,"journal":{"name":"PNAS nexus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11250223/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides.\",\"authors\":\"Curtis Puryear, Emily Kubin, Chelsea Schein, Yochanan E Bigman, Pierce Ekstrom, Kurt Gray\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This \\\"basic morality bias\\\" is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PNAS nexus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11250223/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PNAS nexus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PNAS nexus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

弥合政治分歧的努力往往集中在驾驭复杂而具有分歧的问题上,但八项研究显示,我们还应该关注一个更基本的误解:即政治对手愿意接受基本的道德错误。在美国,民主党人和共和党人高估了认可公然不道德行为(如儿童色情、挪用公款)的政治外群体成员的数量。这种 "基本道德偏差 "与政治非人化有关,并通过多种方法揭示出来,包括对大型社交媒体语料库进行自然语言分析,以及对具有代表性的美国人进行抽样调查。重要的是,基本道德偏差可以通过简短、可扩展的干预措施得到纠正。只要提供一个政治对手谴责公然错误的信息,就会增加与政治对手合作的意愿,并大大降低政治非人性化。
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
People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides.

Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This "basic morality bias" is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political 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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pollen foraging mediates exposure to dichotomous stressor syndromes in honey bees. Affective polarization is uniformly distributed across American States. Attraction to politically extreme users on social media. Critical thinking and misinformation vulnerability: experimental evidence from Colombia. Descriptive norms can "backfire" in hyper-polarized contexts.
×
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