The general fault in our fault lines
Open accessAbstract
Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide. Ruggeri et al. tested perceptions of opposing political party members in 10,207 participants from 26 countries. Results show that beliefs about others are overly negative but could be more realistic with transparency about actual group beliefs.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People hold exaggerated meta-perceptions of their political outgroups and overstate the magnitude of partisan animosity the political out-group feels about one's own political in-group, and they also overestimate the degree of polarization between groups.
“People hold exaggerated meta-perceptions of their political outgroups and overstate the magnitude of partisan animosity the political out-group feels about one's own political in-group (Ruggeri et al. 2021), and they also overestimate the degree of polarization between groups.”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Ruggeri et al. 2021
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSome work suggests that one can correct misperceptions and thus temper antidemocratic attitudes and support for partisan violence.
“Some work suggests that one can correct misperceptions and thus temper antidemocratic attitudes and support for partisan violence (e.g., Lees & Cikara, 2020;Ruggeri et al., 2021).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Ruggeri et al., 2021
The Conclusion (page not provided) says that disclosing out-groups’ true perceptions reduced inaccurate negative motive attributions, supporting the claim that correcting misperceptions can temper some negative attitudes. The paper does not report reductions in antidemocratic attitudes or support for partisan violence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPeople tend to overestimate animosity between political groups.
“People also tend to overestimate the degree of polarization (Levendusky & Malhotra 2016, Westfall et al. 2015) and animosity (Mernyk et al. 2022, Ruggeri et al. 2021) between political groups, which may be exacerbated by the abundance of divisive content they see online.”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Ruggeri et al. 2021
Informing individuals of their inaccurate beliefs can be beneficial for intergroup relations.
“informing individuals of their inaccurate beliefs can be beneficial for intergroup relations (Ruggeri et al., 2021).”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Ruggeri et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 128
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L. O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 14864-14872 (2020).
- Carothers, T. & O'Donohue, A. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization (Brookings Institution Press, 2019).
- PPr Svendborg, Svendborg Kommune, Svendborg, Denmark. 6 Department of experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Authors
- Ruggeri, K., Većkalov, B., Bojanić, L., Andersen, T. L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Ayacaxli, N., Barea-Arroyo, P., Berge, M. L., Bjørndal, L. D., Bursalıoğlu, A., Bühler, V., Čadek, M., Çetinçelik, M., Clay, G., Cortijos-Bernabeu, A., Damnjanović, K., Dugue, T. M., Esberg, M., Esteban-Serna, C., Felder, E. N., Friedemann, M., Frontera-Villanueva, D. I., Gale, P., Garcia-Garzon, E., Geiger, S. J., George, L., Girardello, A., Gracheva, A., Gracheva, A., Guillory, M., Hecht, M., Herte, K., Hubená, B., Ingalls, W., Jakob, L., Janssens, M., Jarke, H., Kácha, O., Kalinova, K. N., Karakasheva, R., Khorrami, P. R., Lep, Ž., Lins, S., Lofthus, I. S., Mamede, S., Mareva, S., Mascarenhas, M. F., McGill, L., Morales-Izquierdo, S., Moltrecht, B., Mueller, T. S., Musetti, M., Nelsson, J., Otto, T., Paul, A. F., Pavlović, I., Petrović, M. B., Popović, D., Prinz, G. M., Razum, J., Sakelariev, I., Samuels, V., Sanguino, I., Say, N., Schuck, J., Soysal, I., Todsen, A. L., Tünte, M. R., Vdovic, M., Vintr, J., Vovko, M., Vranka, M. A., Wagner, L., Wilkins, L., Willems, M., Wisdom, E., Yosifova, A., Zeng, S., Ahmed, M. A., Dwarkanath, T., Cikara, M., Lees, J., & Folke, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Svendborg Sygehus (DK)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Columbia University (US)
- Universidad de Sevilla (ES)
- Eötvös Loránd University (HU)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Leeds Beckett University (GB)
- Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (NL)
- Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
- University of Belgrade (RS)
- University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez (PR)
- University of Zagreb (HR)
- University College London (GB)
- Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (FR)
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- National Institute of Mental Health (CZ)
- Charles University (CZ)
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Ljubljana (SI)
- Universidade do Porto (PT)
- MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
- University of Lisbon (PT)
- University of Groningen (NL)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Anna Freud Centre (GB)
- University of Padua (IT)
- Uppsala University (SE)
- Leiden University (NL)
- Institut Društvenih Znanosti Ivo Pilar (HR)
- Prague University of Economics and Business (CZ)
- University of Tübingen (DE)
- University of St Andrews (GB)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- New Bulgarian University (BG)
- St. Olaf College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ruggeri, Kai
- ORCID
- Ruggeri, Kai
- Većkalov, Bojana
- Bojanić, Lana
- Andersen, Thomas L.
- Ashcroft-Jones, Sarah
- Barea-Arroyo, Paula
- Bjørndal, Ludvig D.
- Bursalıoğlu, Aslı
- Čadek, Martin
- Çetinçelik, Melis
- Clay, Georgia
- Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna
- Damnjanović, Kaja
- Dugue, Tatianna M.
- Esberg, Maya
- Esteban-Serna, Celia
- Friedemann, Maja
- Frontera-Villanueva, Darianna I.
- Gale, Patricia
- Geiger, Sandra J.
- George, Leya
- Girardello, Allegra
- Gracheva, Aleksandra
- Gracheva, Anastasia
- Hecht, Marlene
- Herte, Katharina
- Hubená, Barbora
- Ingalls, William
- Jakob, Lea
- Janssens, Margo
- Jarke, Hannes
- Kácha, Ondřej
- Kalinova, Kalina Nikolova
- Karakasheva, Ralitsa
- Khorrami, Peggah R.
- Lep, Žan
- Lins, Samuel
- Mamede, Salomé
- Mareva, Silvana
- Mascarenhas, Mafalda F.
- McGill, Lucy
- Morales-Izquierdo, Sara
- Moltrecht, Bettina
- Mueller, Tasja S.
- Nelsson, Joakim
- Paul, Alessandro F.
- Petrović, Marija B.
- Popović, Dora
- Prinz, Gerhard M.
- Razum, Josip
- Sakelariev, Ivaylo
- Sanguino, Inés
- Say, Nicolas
- Schuck, Jakob
- Soysal, Irem
- Todsen, Anna Louise
- Tünte, Markus R.
- Vintr, Jáchym
- Vranka, Marek A.
- Wagner, Lisa
- Wilkins, Lauren
- Wisdom, Elizabeth
- Yosifova, Aleksandra
- Ahmed, Mahmoud A.
- Dwarkanath, Twinkle
- Cikara, Mina
- Lees, Jeffrey
- Folke, Tomas
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2021-04-22
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1369-1380
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3155880636
- Cited by
- 128
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 34.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Faculty of Philosophy (University of Belgrade) (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- This project was indirectly supported by the Columbia University Global Scholars Program through the Department of Undergraduate Global Engagement and the Office of the Provost.
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- political polarization, fault lines, motive attribution, disclosure interventions, intergroup relations, cross-cultural generalizability, party members, replication
- MeSH terms
- Communication Barriers, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Culture, Generalization, Psychological, Group Processes, Humans, Politics, Prejudice, Rationalization, Social Behavior, Social Change, Social Perception, Stereotyping, Sociological Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
