检验社会压力假说:党内社会压力会减少党外共鸣吗?

IF 2.2 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PNAS nexus Pub Date : 2024-10-15 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae358
Lea Pradella
{"title":"检验社会压力假说:党内社会压力会减少党外共鸣吗?","authors":"Lea Pradella","doi":"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Empathy is considered one of the most critical components for bridging political divides and reducing animosity between political groups. Yet, empathy between political opponents is rare. There is a growing concern that partisans do not empathize with out-partisans because they feel social pressure from fellow in-partisans not to do so. This article examines this social pressure hypothesis and draws two conclusions. First, on the surface, the hypothesis seems plausible: citizens perceive fellow in-partisans as comparatively disapproving of and reluctant to engage in out-party empathy, and naïve cross-sectional analyses suggest that this perception translates into lower empathy towards out-partisans. Second, however, experimental data suggest that this relationship is not causal. Expecting disapproval from fellow in-party members for empathizing with out-partisans does not lead to a significant reduction in intentions to empathize with out-partisans. Rather, exploratory analyses suggest that social pressure by the in-party increases empathy toward out-partisans and triggers disappointment toward in-partisans. This implies that partisans can resist social pressure from the in-party and might even compensate for in-partisans' lack of out-party empathy. The results are supported by original cross-sectional and experimental survey data ( <math><mi>N</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>2,535</mn></math> ) collected in the United States, an arguably most likely case for in-party social pressure to shape partisans' intentions. The results have important implications for understanding the causes of and viable strategies for building empathy across political divides.</p>","PeriodicalId":74468,"journal":{"name":"PNAS nexus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing the social pressure hypothesis: Does in-party social pressure reduce out-party empathy?\",\"authors\":\"Lea Pradella\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Empathy is considered one of the most critical components for bridging political divides and reducing animosity between political groups. Yet, empathy between political opponents is rare. There is a growing concern that partisans do not empathize with out-partisans because they feel social pressure from fellow in-partisans not to do so. This article examines this social pressure hypothesis and draws two conclusions. First, on the surface, the hypothesis seems plausible: citizens perceive fellow in-partisans as comparatively disapproving of and reluctant to engage in out-party empathy, and naïve cross-sectional analyses suggest that this perception translates into lower empathy towards out-partisans. Second, however, experimental data suggest that this relationship is not causal. Expecting disapproval from fellow in-party members for empathizing with out-partisans does not lead to a significant reduction in intentions to empathize with out-partisans. Rather, exploratory analyses suggest that social pressure by the in-party increases empathy toward out-partisans and triggers disappointment toward in-partisans. This implies that partisans can resist social pressure from the in-party and might even compensate for in-partisans' lack of out-party empathy. The results are supported by original cross-sectional and experimental survey data ( <math><mi>N</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>2,535</mn></math> ) collected in the United States, an arguably most likely case for in-party social pressure to shape partisans' intentions. The results have important implications for understanding the causes of and viable strategies for building empathy across political divides.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PNAS nexus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475405/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PNAS nexus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 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/pgae358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

同理心被认为是弥合政治分歧、减少政治团体之间敌意的最关键因素之一。然而,政治对手之间的移情却很少见。越来越多的人担心,党派人士之所以不与党外人士共情,是因为他们感受到了来自党内同僚的社会压力。本文对这一社会压力假说进行了研究,并得出两个结论。首先,从表面上看,这一假说似乎是可信的:公民认为党内同僚相对不赞成和不愿意与党外同僚产生共鸣,天真的横截面分析表明,这种看法会转化为对党外同僚的较低共鸣。其次,实验数据表明这种关系并非因果关系。因为同情党外人士而预期会遭到党内同僚的反对,并不会导致同情党外人士的意愿显著下降。相反,探索性分析表明,党内人士的社会压力会增加对党外人士的同情,并引发对党内人士的失望。这意味着党内人士可以抵制来自党内的社会压力,甚至可以弥补党内人士对党外人士共情的不足。这些结果得到了在美国收集的原始横截面和实验调查数据(N = 2,535 )的支持。这些结果对于理解跨政治分歧建立同理心的原因和可行策略具有重要意义。
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
Testing the social pressure hypothesis: Does in-party social pressure reduce out-party empathy?

Empathy is considered one of the most critical components for bridging political divides and reducing animosity between political groups. Yet, empathy between political opponents is rare. There is a growing concern that partisans do not empathize with out-partisans because they feel social pressure from fellow in-partisans not to do so. This article examines this social pressure hypothesis and draws two conclusions. First, on the surface, the hypothesis seems plausible: citizens perceive fellow in-partisans as comparatively disapproving of and reluctant to engage in out-party empathy, and naïve cross-sectional analyses suggest that this perception translates into lower empathy towards out-partisans. Second, however, experimental data suggest that this relationship is not causal. Expecting disapproval from fellow in-party members for empathizing with out-partisans does not lead to a significant reduction in intentions to empathize with out-partisans. Rather, exploratory analyses suggest that social pressure by the in-party increases empathy toward out-partisans and triggers disappointment toward in-partisans. This implies that partisans can resist social pressure from the in-party and might even compensate for in-partisans' lack of out-party empathy. The results are supported by original cross-sectional and experimental survey data ( N = 2,535 ) collected in the United States, an arguably most likely case for in-party social pressure to shape partisans' intentions. The results have important implications for understanding the causes of and viable strategies for building empathy across political divides.

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