Political opponents often seem to us not merely mistaken but morally corrupt or even "subhuman." Psychologists call this affective polarization - the tendency to feel dislike and distrust toward supporters of another party, and not merely to disagree with their views. A new study published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin shows that if a person believes opponents see them as a full human being rather than an "animal," they become more open to negotiations and compromises. And the key role here is played by a reduction in disgust, not anger or empathy.
The study concerns metaperception - the idea of how our group is evaluated by others. When people are confident that opponents consider them "subhuman," this triggers reciprocal hostility. The opposite feeling - metahumanization, that is, the belief that opponents see us as human - can improve relations.
To understand which emotions explain this effect, Melissa Pavetich of Heriot-Watt University in Dubai and Sofia Stathi of the University of Greenwich conducted five experiments with 1,541 participants in the UK, the US and Canada. Participants read fictional social media posts attributed to supporters of the opposing party. In some posts their party was called "animals and brutes devoid of self-control," in others "refined." The people then rated their emotions and willingness to engage in dialogue on seven-point scales.
The first experiment involved 353 Britons (mean age 36), evenly divided between supporters of the Conservative and Labour parties. Those who read the "humanizing" posts reported less anger and disgust, were less often inclined to humiliate opponents and were more comfortable in close social contact. For example, among Labour supporters, disgust averaged 2.14 versus 3.21 in the "dehumanization" group, and anger 1.94 versus 2.61.
In four subsequent experiments the researchers added a control group and measured empathy. In the US, on the eve of the 2024 presidential election, 301 Republicans and 302 Democrats were surveyed, and in Canada 310 conservatives and 300 liberals. In all cases the "humanizing" posts increased the belief that opponents see them as human, and this reduced disgust. In turn, less disgust predicted that a person considers opponents more human, and therefore lower affective polarization and greater support for negotiations, compromises and working together.
The pathways through anger and empathy turned out to be statistically insignificant. The exception was one Canadian experiment, where empathy also worked as a parallel bridge, but only under low or moderate threat to social unity. Threat to social cohesion is concern that political disagreements are destroying shared values and trust. The effect through disgust was most robust under moderate threat, and also appeared under high threat among conservatives and under low threat among liberals and Democrats.
The authors emphasize that the effects ranged from small to moderate and cannot by themselves eliminate partisan hostility. In addition, emotions and willingness to compromise were measured at the same time, so the study does not prove causation - it shows a statistical association. Pavetich also cautions that one cannot simply tell people that opponents see them as human if that is not true. Metaperception works better when it reflects real signals. Finally, the study was conducted in three Western countries with two-party systems, and the results may not transfer to multi-party systems or protracted conflicts.