CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 281Social and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans

Open access
Moore-Berg, Samantha L., Ankori-Karlinsky, Lee-Or, Hameiri, Boaz, Bruneau, Emile·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.2001263117PMC PMC7334646
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

People's actions toward a competitive outgroup can be motivated not only by their perceptions of the outgroup, but also by how they think the outgroup perceives the ingroup (i.e., meta-perceptions). Here, we examine the prevalence, accuracy, and consequences of meta-perceptions among American political partisans. Using a representative sample ( n = 1,056) and a longitudinal convenience sample ( n = 2,707), we find that Democrats and Republicans equally dislike and dehumanize each other but think that the levels of prejudice and dehumanization held by the outgroup party are approximately twice as strong as actually reported by a representative sample of Democrats and Republicans. Overestimations of negative meta-perceptions were consistent across samples over time and between demographic subgroups but were modulated by political ideology: More strongly liberal Democrats and more strongly conservative Republicans were particularly prone to exaggerate meta-perceptions. Finally, we show that meta-prejudice and meta-dehumanization are independently associated with the desire for social distance from members of the outgroup party and support for policies that harm the country and flout democratic norms to favor the ingroup political party. This research demonstrates that partisan meta-perceptions are subject to a strong negativity bias with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the shadow of partisanship is much larger than it actually is, which fosters mutual intergroup hostilit…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2001263117

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Political partisans tend to overestimate the amount of dislike rival partisans feel toward them, with negative meta-perceptions being linked with ideological extremity and anti-democratic attitudes.

    “Specifically, this research finds that political partisans tend to overestimate the amount of dislike rival partisans feel toward them, with negative meta-perceptions being linked with ideological extremity and anti-democratic attitudes (Lees & Cikara, 2020; Moore-Berg et al., 2020).”

    From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Moore-Berg et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E.
Affiliations
  • Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104;
  • Beyond Conflict (US)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Bruneau, Emile
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-06-11
Volume
117
Issue
26
Pages
14864-14872
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.2001263117
PMC
PMC7334646
OpenAlex
W3034953836
Cited by
281
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
49.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml (vor, 183 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
metaperception, intergroup hostility, partisanship, negativity bias, social distance, political ideology, Democrats and Republicans, democratic norms
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Female, Hostility, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Politics, Prejudice, United States, Models, Statistical, Dehumanization

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