Symmetry of blame: Partisans believe other side has bigger violence problem
FIRE's latest National Speech Index survey, to be released tomorrow, shows a disturbing pattern emerging.
Few topics feel more relevant right now than how Americans see others who disagree with them politically. As a social psychologist, I get to regularly teach students about these dynamics. And now, from FIRE’s latest National Speech Index, there is new data that almost perfectly illustrates the extent of partisan bias in this country.
Click here to see previous National Speech Index results
In the latest iteration of the NSI, Americans shared with us how much of a problem they perceive political violence to be among progressives and among conservatives. In an almost near perfect demonstration of how polarized Americans are, liberals perceive violence to be a greater problem among conservatives, and conservatives, in a mirror image, perceive it to be a problem among progressives. And moderates, being moderates, perceived political violence to be equally problematic across the board.
What makes this pattern so striking is its near-perfect symmetry. Both sides are making the same kind and magnitude of error, just in opposite directions. Also striking are the responses from political moderates who place roughly equal blame on both sides and view political violence as a problem across the spectrum, rather than a problem concentrated on any one side. The pattern is so stark that it almost makes it seem like the figure plotting the means is fake!
But it is not fake. And it is concerning.
When almost everyone on a “team” truly believes their opponents are the ones with violent tendencies, mistrust becomes self-sustaining and dialogue becomes increasingly difficult. These misperceptions breed fear, cynicism, and division, which amounts to pouring gasoline on the fire of political polarization that is already burning.
Americans are correct that political violence is a problem, but it’s one that everyone should be grappling to address regardless of partisan loyalties. Because while explicit support for political violence is low (2% or less, depending on the form), neither side is actually more supportive than the other.
Now, none of this means both sides are always identical, that every claim of bias is wrong, or that political violence doesn’t exist. Real differences in beliefs and behavior do manifest. But the picture each side holds of the other is often distorted, and distortions keep division alive even when the facts differ.
As the parable goes, each side must confront the log in its own eye before condemning the speck of dust in the other’s. Both should acknowledge and address their own serious failings with political violence before they can see clearly enough to address it in others. If both sides keep pointing fingers, the problem may instead continue to grow worse.
Tune in tomorrow for many more NSI findings when this quarter’s full results are released.
 | A guest post by
|
Yup. And as the idiom (sorta) says: both parties are one side of the same sword. Each sees the other as evil.
I wish there were more long-term studies about the psychology of party affiliation in the US. There have been a few studies in Europe. A few years back that found intergenerational correlation between parent's political views and their children. (Van Ditmar's study) Political views were usually inherited at the decadal time span. But that study was done in Europe, and the Continent has a different kind of politics than the US. There's been a few books too ... but maybe I'm missing the long-term studies about the US. Basically, political views aren't shaped by reason but familial nuturing. i.e. party affiliation is more like religious studies that found religiosity (or lack of) is also an inheritance of beliefs.