Can Knowing the Truth Bring Us Closer Together

In new research, Associate Professor Alain Cohn and PhD student Qingyi Wang, both in the School of Information, explore what drives affective polarization by examining how beliefs about political opponents shape both political attitudes and behavior.

The research asks whether correcting false stereotypes about Democrats and Republicans can reduce partisan divides. In particular, the study focuses on beliefs about two core traits that shape social perception: competence (such as cognitive ability) and warmth (such as trustworthiness). The project explores whether providing accurate information about these traits can narrow partisan divides and influence how people interact across party lines.

The Experiment

The study began by examining whether partisan stereotypes reflect reality. Democrats and Republicans were asked to complete tasks measuring cognitive ability and trustworthiness. The results showed no meaningful differences between the two groups.

Despite this, participants consistently rated members of their own party as significantly more competent and trustworthy than members of the opposing party. On average, respondents believed their co-partisans were about 20 percent superior on both dimensions. After participants were shown accurate information about group performance, these belief gaps shrank by more than 60 percent.

However, changes in beliefs did not translate into large shifts in emotional evaluations. Using a standard “feeling thermometer” scale, participants continued to report much warmer feelings toward their own party than toward the opposing party. On average, this emotional gap remained substantial.

Emotional Change and Behavioral Differentiation

To move beyond attitudes alone, the study examined how belief correction affects behavior. Participants were asked how much compensation they would require to engage in a 10-minute anonymous chat with either a Democrat or a Republican across three topics: political issues, personal finance, and pop culture.

Rather than measuring absolute willingness to chat, the researchers focused on the gap between how participants valued interactions with co-partisans versus counter-partisans. Before receiving corrective information, participants required about $1 more to chat with someone from the opposing party than with someone from their own party. After receiving accurate information about partisan competence and warmth, that gap narrowed by roughly 30 percent.

These results show that stereotype correction reduced the extent to which participants differentiated between in-party and out-party counterparts. While the intervention did not eliminate partisan preferences, it made behavioral distinctions between the two groups less pronounced.

Beliefs, Preferences, and Polarization

This study builds on social identity theory, which explains how group membership shapes attitudes and behavior. In political contexts, polarization can stem from preferences, such as loyalty to one’s own party or aversion to the other, as well as from beliefs, including inaccurate perceptions about the traits of opposing groups.

The findings suggest that some belief-based divides, particularly those rooted in a lack of information, are responsive to correction. While emotional attachments to partisan identities remain strong, misperceptions about competence and trustworthiness appear more flexible. Correcting these beliefs does not fully resolve affective polarization, but it can reduce behavioral separation between political groups.

A Path Toward Dialogue

The study highlights an important distinction between attitudes and behaviors. While correcting stereotypes did not substantially change feelings of liking or animosity toward the opposing party, it reduced behavioral differentiation in social interactions. This suggests that interventions do not need to fully transform emotions to produce meaningful effects.

The findings indicate that approaches to reducing polarization may need to be tailored. Strategies that work to improve attitudes may differ from those that influence behavior. Even modest informational interventions can lessen behavioral divides, creating more space for interaction across party lines.

By showing that correcting inaccurate stereotypes can reduce behavioral polarization, the study points toward practical ways to support cross-partisan engagement in an increasingly divided political landscape.