Using "balanced pragmatism" in political discussions increases cross-partisan respect.

Synthesizing research on wisdom and a real-world practitioner intervention, we develop and test a strategy for presenting political views that fosters cross-partisan respect. This strategy of balanced pragmatism combines two aspects of "wise reasoning": balancing multiple interests and seeking pragmatic solutions. Studies 1-5 (N = 2,846) demonstrate that participants respected outgroup political elites more when they used balanced pragmatism versus other forms of messaging. Studies 6-8 (N = 671) extend the usefulness of balanced pragmatism to everyday political disagreements: cross-partisan comments about divisive issues (i.e., guns and immigration) generated more respect when they used balanced pragmatism versus logical analysis. Strikingly, people were as willing to discuss politics with opponents who used balanced pragmatism as they were with ingroup members. Balanced pragmatism appears to improve cross-partisan respect by making opponents seem more moral and rational. Results highlight connections between political psychology and wisdom research and illustrate the fruitfulness of scientist-practitioner collaborations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Moral panics on social media are fueled by signals of virality.

Moral panics have regularly erupted in society, but they appear almost daily on social media. We propose that social media helps fuel moral panics by combining perceived societal threats with a powerful signal of social amplification-virality. Eight studies with multiple methods test a social amplification model of moral panics in which virality amplifies perceptions of threats posed by deviant behavior and ideas, prompting moral outrage expression. Three naturalistic studies of Twitter (N = 237,230) reveal that virality predicts moral outrage in response to tweets about controversial issues, even when controlling for specific tweet content. Five experiments (N = 1,499) reveal the causal impact of virality on outrage expression and suggest that feelings of danger mediate this effect. This work connects classic ideas about moral panics with ongoing research on social media and provides a perspective on the nature of moral outrage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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.