Correcting Misperceptions at a Glance: Using Data Visualizations to Reduce Political Sectarianism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Political sectarianism is fueled in part by misperceptions of political opponents: People commonly overestimate the support for extreme policies among members of the other party. These misperceptions inflame partisan animosity and may be used to justify extremism among one's own party. Research suggests that correcting partisan misperceptions-by informing people about the actual views of outparty members-may reduce one's own expressed support for political extremism, including partisan violence and antidemocratic actions. However, there remains a limited understanding of how the design of correction interventions drives these effects. The present study investigated how correction effects depend on different representations of outparty views communicated through data visualizations. Building on prior interventions that present the average outparty view, we consider the impact of visualizations that more fully convey the range of views among outparty members. We conducted an experiment with U.S.-based participants from Prolific (N=239 Democrats, N=244 Republicans). Participants made predictions about support for political violence and undemocratic practices among members of their political outparty. They were then presented with data from an earlier survey on the actual views of outparty members. Some participants viewed only the average response (Mean-Only condition), while other groups were shown visual representations of the range of views from 75% of the outparty (Mean+Interval condition) or the full distribution of responses (Mean+Points condition). Compared to a control group that was not informed about outparty views, we observed the strongest correction effects (i.e., lower support for political violence and undemocratic practices) among participants in the Mean-only and Mean+Points condition, while correction effects were weaker in the Mean+Interval condition. In addition, participants who observed the full distribution of out-party views (Mean+Points condition) were most accurate at later recalling the degree of support among the outparty. Our findings suggest that data visualizations can be an important tool for correcting pervasive distortions in beliefs about other groups. However, the way in which variability in outparty views is visualized can significantly shape how people interpret and respond to corrective information. Supplemental materials for this paper are available at this OSF repository.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".