Rolf Degen summarizing... People like copartisan political-perspective seekers, who attempt to hear from the other side, but less so if they venture too far into enemy ideological territory

Seek and Ye Shall Be Fine: Attitudes Toward Political-Perspective Seekers. Gordon Heltzel, Kristin Laurin. Psychological Science, October 22, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211011969

Abstract: Six preregistered studies (N = 2,421) examined how people respond to copartisan political-perspective seekers: political allies who attempt to hear from shared opponents and better understand their views. We found that North American adults and students generally like copartisan seekers (meta-analytic Cohen’s d = 0.83 across 4,231 participants, representing all available data points). People like copartisan perspective seekers because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, but this liking is diminished because seekers seem to validate—and may even adopt—opponents’ illegitimate views. Participants liked copartisan seekers across a range of different motivations guiding these seekers’ actions but, consistent with our theorizing, their liking decreased (though rarely disappeared entirely) when seekers lacked partisan commitments or when they sought especially illegitimate beliefs. Despite evidence of rising political intolerance in recent decades, these findings suggest that people nonetheless celebrate political allies who tolerate and seriously consider their opponents’ views.

Keywords: political intolerance, intergroup relations, ideology, polarization, perspective seeking, open data, open materials, preregistered

---

People like co-partisan seekers because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, but this liking is diminished because seekers seem to validate—and may even adopt—opponents’ illegitimate views

---

General Discussion

People generally like political allies who seek to understand, rather than avoid, shared opponents’ beliefs. These findings suggest that Sarah Silverman’s show might have been canceled despite her willingness to hear opposing views, not because of it. More importantly, they align with recent evidence that people prefer copartisans who tolerate and respect their opponents (Druckman et al., 2019; Frimer & Skitka, 2018; see Heltzel & Laurin, 2020). Yet they clash with other work suggesting that people do not tolerate their political opponents (Haidt et al., 2003), dislike copartisan politicians who compromise with opponents (Ryan, 2017), and reject people who empathize with proponents of illegitimate views (Wang & Todd, 2020).

Our findings reframe this contradiction, suggesting that both tendencies coexist: Seekers are both admirable and alarming but to different degrees. People like them because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, yet they simultaneously (and to a lesser degree) dislike them for validating illegitimate beliefs and potentially changing their minds. Accordingly, people like seekers less when they lack partisan commitments and seek especially illegitimate viewpoints.

Theoretical implications

Our findings contribute to a new literature extending political intolerance from its intergroup origins to intragroup contexts. In so doing, we highlight a paradox: People refuse to tolerate political out-groups (Finkel et al., 2020; Haidt et al., 2003; Kalmoe & Mason, 2019), yet value tolerance and praise tolerant in-group members (W. Brown, 2009; Druckman et al., 2019; Frimer & Skitka, 2018), even those willing to compromise with the enemy (Study 2). However, people do not praise in-group leaders who could actually enact compromise (Ryan, 2017). More research is needed to understand these contours of people’s political tolerances (and intolerances) and how people reconcile their paradoxical reactions in their own minds (Guan et al., in press).

Our findings also speak to ongoing debates about whether conservatives, extremists, or moralizers are most guilty of political intolerance (Crawford, 2014; Ganzach & Schul, 2021; Skitka, 2010). Our findings best support the intolerant-extremist view, while also highlighting commonalities across levels of ideology and moralization.

When might people prefer avoiders?

Despite focusing on contentious, morally laden issues (e.g., abortion, gun control, immigration; Koleva et al., 2012), we never observed a case in which participants preferred avoiders over seekers. Our mechanisms nonetheless allow for such cases. For example, our participants were North Americans, but other societies value tolerance and rationality less and therefore might like seekers less. Additionally, there should be a point at which beliefs seem so illegitimate that people prefer others who avoid rather than seek them. Perhaps the beliefs featured in our studies never reached this point: Even the extreme views from Study 4 were rated far from maximally illegitimate (5.29 on a 7-point scale).

That said, many people expect their political opponents to hold precisely these sorts of abhorrent views (Ahler & Sood, 2018). When perspective seekers aim to understand their opponents in general, their allies’ minds may naturally conjure the worst of these opponents’ views and take great offense. For instance, liberals may interpret copartisans’ seeking to understand conservatives as trying to understand White supremacists, and conservatives may interpret copartisans’ seeking to understand liberals as trying to understand flag-burning Communists. For this reason, seekers might be most liked when seeking opponents’ views on specific policy debates. Indeed, Studies 1b and S7 revealed a remarkably weaker preference for targets who sought to understand their ideological opponents generally rather than their specific policy beliefs (see Table 1).

Intuitions about perspective seeking’s social desirability

For many—ourselves included—these findings may seem counterintuitive. Outrage pervades political discourse on social media and in the news (Brady et al., 2020; Pew Research Center, 2019), fueling intuitions that people’s hate for opponents would extend to allies seeking those opponents’ views. Our results suggest that this intuition is incorrect, but even incorrect intuitions can powerfully shape behavior (Prentice & Miller, 1993). For instance, if people mistakenly believe that others discourage political-perspective seeking, they may abstain from it out of fear of social punishment, thereby perpetuating polarization.