Literature DB >> 36123534

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity.

Rachel Hartman1, Will Blakey2, Jake Womick2, Chris Bail3, Eli J Finkel4, Hahrie Han5, John Sarrouf6, Juliana Schroeder7, Paschal Sheeran2, Jay J Van Bavel8, Robb Willer9, Kurt Gray10.   

Abstract

Rising partisan animosity is associated with a reduction in support for democracy and an increase in support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework to capture three levels of intervention-thoughts (correcting misconceptions and highlighting commonalities), relationships (building dialogue skills and fostering positive contact) and institutions (changing public discourse and transforming political structures)-and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects and real-world interventions led by practitioners in non-profit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.
© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36123534     DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01442-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Hum Behav        ISSN: 2397-3374


  38 in total

1.  Awe, ideological conviction, and perceptions of ideological opponents.

Authors:  Daniel M Stancato; Dacher Keltner
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2019-08-12

2.  Political sectarianism in America.

Authors:  Eli J Finkel; Christopher A Bail; Mina Cikara; Peter H Ditto; Shanto Iyengar; Samara Klar; Lilliana Mason; Mary C McGrath; Brendan Nyhan; David G Rand; Linda J Skitka; Joshua A Tucker; Jay J Van Bavel; Cynthia S Wang; James N Druckman
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America.

Authors:  James N Druckman; Samara Klar; Yanna Krupnikov; Matthew Levendusky; John Barry Ryan
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-11-23

Review 4.  Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.

Authors:  Jay J Van Bavel; Katherine Baicker; Paulo S Boggio; Valerio Capraro; Aleksandra Cichocka; Mina Cikara; Molly J Crockett; Alia J Crum; Karen M Douglas; James N Druckman; John Drury; Oeindrila Dube; Naomi Ellemers; Eli J Finkel; James H Fowler; Michele Gelfand; Shihui Han; S Alexander Haslam; Jolanda Jetten; Shinobu Kitayama; Dean Mobbs; Lucy E Napper; Dominic J Packer; Gordon Pennycook; Ellen Peters; Richard E Petty; David G Rand; Stephen D Reicher; Simone Schnall; Azim Shariff; Linda J Skitka; Sandra Susan Smith; Cass R Sunstein; Nassim Tabri; Joshua A Tucker; Sander van der Linden; Paul van Lange; Kim A Weeden; Michael J A Wohl; Jamil Zaki; Sean R Zion; Robb Willer
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-04-30

5.  Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans.

Authors:  Samantha L Moore-Berg; Lee-Or Ankori-Karlinsky; Boaz Hameiri; Emile Bruneau
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts.

Authors:  Jeffrey Lees; Mina Cikara
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2019-11-11

7.  The general fault in our fault lines.

Authors:  Kai Ruggeri; Bojana Većkalov; Lana Bojanić; Thomas L Andersen; Sarah Ashcroft-Jones; Nélida Ayacaxli; Paula Barea-Arroyo; Mari Louise Berge; Ludvig D Bjørndal; Aslı Bursalıoğlu; Vanessa Bühler; Martin Čadek; Melis Çetinçelik; Georgia Clay; Anna Cortijos-Bernabeu; Kaja Damnjanović; Tatianna M Dugue; Maya Esberg; Celia Esteban-Serna; Ezra N Felder; Maja Friedemann; Darianna I Frontera-Villanueva; Patricia Gale; Eduardo Garcia-Garzon; Sandra J Geiger; Leya George; Allegra Girardello; Aleksandra Gracheva; Anastasia Gracheva; Marquis Guillory; Marlene Hecht; Katharina Herte; Barbora Hubená; William Ingalls; Lea Jakob; Margo Janssens; Hannes Jarke; Ondřej Kácha; Kalina Nikolova Kalinova; Ralitsa Karakasheva; Peggah R Khorrami; Žan Lep; Samuel Lins; Ingvild S Lofthus; Salomé Mamede; Silvana Mareva; Mafalda F Mascarenhas; Lucy McGill; Sara Morales-Izquierdo; Bettina Moltrecht; Tasja S Mueller; Marzia Musetti; Joakim Nelsson; Thiago Otto; Alessandro F Paul; Irena Pavlović; Marija B Petrović; Dora Popović; Gerhard M Prinz; Josip Razum; Ivaylo Sakelariev; Vivian Samuels; Inés Sanguino; Nicolas Say; Jakob Schuck; Irem Soysal; Anna Louise Todsen; Markus R Tünte; Milica Vdovic; Jáchym Vintr; Maja Vovko; Marek A Vranka; Lisa Wagner; Lauren Wilkins; Manou Willems; Elizabeth Wisdom; Aleksandra Yosifova; Sandy Zeng; Mahmoud A Ahmed; Twinkle Dwarkanath; Mina Cikara; Jeffrey Lees; Tomas Folke
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-04-22

8.  Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.

Authors:  Christopher A Bail; Lisa P Argyle; Taylor W Brown; John P Bumpus; Haohan Chen; M B Fallin Hunzaker; Jaemin Lee; Marcus Mann; Friedolin Merhout; Alexander Volfovsky
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts.

Authors:  Emily Kubin; Curtis Puryear; Chelsea Schein; Kurt Gray
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 10.  Polarization in America: two possible futures.

Authors:  Gordon Heltzel; Kristin Laurin
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2020-05-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.