Inner Circle Agreement Skews View of Societal Division

50

Is the chasm between opposing viewpoints on today’s pressing issues as wide as it seems? A new study suggests that our perception of societal polarization may be more a reflection of the opinions within our closest circles than an accurate measure of overall division.

Researchers at the Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) in Bremen, the Complexity Science Hub (CSH) in Vienna, and the University of California Merced have explored this very question, publishing their findings in PNAS Nexus. Their work challenges the assumption that society is irrevocably splitting into warring factions, particularly on topics like public health, immigration, and climate change.

The study, authored by Peter Steiglechner (ZMT, now at CSH), Agostino Merico (ZMT), and Paul E. Smaldino (University of California Merced), delves into the intricacies of how we perceive polarization, distinguishing between actual divergence of opinion and our subjective experience of it. “When we think about contested political issues, we often have the impression that people within our inner social circles—family, friends, or political in-groups—hold relatively aligned and often even converging opinions. However, we sometimes also perceive that society overall is polarizing. This uncomfortable perception may actually not always be entirely true,” explains Steiglechner.

Their research introduces the concept of a political “lens”—a metaphorical framework through which individuals interpret the spectrum of opinions. This lens is shaped by the viewpoints prevalent within a person’s immediate social circle. The researchers argue that the narrower the range of opinions within that circle, the more polarized society will appear to be.

“The broader the spread of these opinions on a given topic, the ‘thicker’ the lens and the less divergent the broader society is perceived with respect to that topic,” explains Steiglechner. “The narrower the spread in one’s inner circle, i.e., the ‘thinner’ the lens, the more polarized the broader society is perceived.”

To illustrate this point, consider the ongoing debate surrounding climate change. If an individual’s close friends and family overwhelmingly agree on the severity and urgency of the issue, that person may perceive a much greater degree of polarization in society at large compared to someone whose inner circle holds a more diverse range of opinions on the matter.

The implications of this research are significant, particularly in an era where perceived polarization fuels social and political instability. The study highlights the importance of understanding the psychological mechanisms that drive our perceptions of division.

The study offers a new perspective on assessing and measuring the extent of polarization, say the authors.

• Inner Circle Influence: Our immediate social circles significantly shape our perception of societal polarization.
• Subjective Lens: We interpret the world through a “political lens” influenced by the opinions of those closest to us.
• Dynamic Perception: Perceived polarization can shift based on the changing dynamics within our inner circles.

Current Progress: This new study offers a framework for understanding that perceived polarization is heavily influenced by the agreement of opinions within our “inner circle”. It suggests that a sense of division in society at large is often a projection of the relative uniformity of thought among our close contacts.

Looking ahead, it’s critical to understand that perceptions of polarization can vary greatly between political groups, even regarding the degree of division itself. “Ultimately, people don’t even have to agree so much on how divided they are or on which issues they do or do not diverge,” concludes Steiglechner. A woman from Ohio commented on a thread about the study on X.com, “It’s scary how echo chambers reinforce our biases. We didn’t realize it until later,” she wrote, adding a thinking-face emoji.

According to the experts, societal polarization—or the perception of it—influences policymaking on challenges such as climate change, food crises or environmental protection and potentially impairs the search for consensus and the implementation of solutions in a democratic way.

Agostino Merico, co-author of the study explains that as this dynamic varies between political groups, the polarization these groups perceive can also deviate greatly. Remaining Hurdles: One majjor hurdle is developing actionable strategies to bridge these perceptual gaps. While this research identifies the problem, the concrete solutions for fostering greater understanding and reducing perceived polarization remain unclear. More studies are needed to explore effective interventions that challenge echo chambers and promote exposure to diverse perspectives. A user commented on Facebook, “It’s easier said than done. How do you break through the algorithm-driven filter bubbles?”

The findings carry significance at a time when rising polarization coincides with alarming societal and political trends, including waning social cohesion and the rise of authoritarian sentiments. Recognizing the social and psychological mechanisms underpinning these phenomena becomes paramount. The research highlights the need for critical awareness and suggests that a shift in perception is a fundamental step towards reducing polarization.