Cited by 155Social and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationConflict Management and Negotiation

Misperceptions in Intergroup Conflict: Disagreeing About What We Disagree About

Open access
Chambers, John R., Baron, Robert S., Inman, Mary L.·2006·Psychological Science

Abstract

Two studies examined misperceptions of disagreement in partisan social conflicts, namely, in the debates over abortion (Study 1) and politics (Study 2). We observed that partisans tend to exaggerate differences of opinion with their adversaries. Further, we found that perceptions of disagreement were more pronounced for values that were central to the perceiver's own ideology than for values that were central to the ideology of the perceiver's adversaries. To the extent that partisans assumed disagreement concerning personally important values, they were also inaccurate in perceiving their adversaries' actual opinions. Discussion focuses on the cognitive mechanisms underlying misperceptions of disagreement and strategies for reducing intergroup conflict.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01662.x

Cites

23 of 23 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chambers, J. R., Baron, R. S., & Inman, M. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Hope College (US)
Corresponding author
Chambers, John R.
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2006-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
38-45
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2143730034
Cited by
155
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Hope College Digital Commons (Hope College) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
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 › Conflict Management and Negotiation
Keywords
intergroup conflict, partisanship, ideological polarization, abortion debate, political conflict, cognitive mechanisms, conflict mitigation
MeSH terms
Abortion, Legal, Adult, Attitude, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Politics, Set, Psychology, Social Identification, Social Perception

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