The growing divide between people with different political opinions has detrimental impacts on human interactions, as it hinders the relationship with close family members, reduces social cooperation, and increases affective polarization(e.g., animosity toward one’s out-group). Previous research suggests that political homophily, the preference for interacting with individuals who hold similar political views, is a central mechanism underlying these negative outcomes. This project directed by Joaquin Navajas at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, co-directed by Amit Goldenberg at Harvard Business School hypothesizes that homophily is not the only driver of attraction between individuals in the political domain. They propose that acrophily, the preference for interacting with individuals who hold more extreme (rather than more moderate) political views, also plays a role in who individuals select to interact with. To test this hypothesis, they will conduct a series of survey experiments across 20 countries in the Americas, representing 97% of its population. The project aims to test the hypothesis that acrophily drives this selection beyond the context of the United States, uncover the social influence mechanisms behind the attraction to political extremes, evaluate the relative contribution of individual and country-level variables on the strength of acrophily, and examine the association between the attraction towards political extremes and affective polarization. Overall, this project will provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of political acrophily and provide key novel insights that will inform efforts to reduce political polarization in order to promote a more inclusive society.

The long-term goal of a project led by Joshua Greene at Harvard and co-directed by Scott Warren is to develop scalable, evidence-based methods to reduce affective polarization (e.g., animosity toward one’s out-group) and anti-democratic behaviors globally. Their research focuses on the advantages of mutually beneficial cooperation to produce these positive effects. This work builds upon the project team’s previous research, expanding it to additional cultural contexts. In the previous work, they conducted a series of experiments in which Republicans and Democrats cooperate as partners in an online quiz game. The team collected baseline measures then allowed participants to interact prior to beginning the quiz. Participants completed a questionnaire and baseline measures. Mutual knowledge of group identities was established and participants were awarded points (and corresponding pay) for accuracy based on a joint answer, which they must have agreed upon via chat. Participants answered each question privately before deciding with their partners, enabling the team to measure the benefits (or costs) of each partnership. The results showed that an hour of gameplay with an out-party partner can produce positive effects lasting up to four months. In this project, the team will test the generality of their prior findings and aim to identify variables that determine whether mutually beneficial cooperation can reduce affective polarization. These include variables related to cultural context as well as generalizable game parameters that are likely to affect learning. They intend to test versions of the quiz game in three new populations: Supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC, a.k.a. “Congress” or “Congress Party”) in India; Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs; and American Republicans and Democrats in naturalistic online settings, including individuals with extreme political views.