Using "balanced pragmatism" in political discussions increases cross-partisan respect.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1037/xge0001554
Curtis Puryear, Kurt Gray
{"title":"Using \"balanced pragmatism\" in political discussions increases cross-partisan respect.","authors":"Curtis Puryear, Kurt Gray","doi":"10.1037/xge0001554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Synthesizing research on wisdom and a real-world practitioner intervention, we develop and test a strategy for presenting political views that fosters cross-partisan respect. This strategy of balanced pragmatism combines two aspects of \"wise reasoning\": balancing multiple interests and seeking pragmatic solutions. Studies 1-5 (<i>N</i> = 2,846) demonstrate that participants respected outgroup political elites more when they used balanced pragmatism versus other forms of messaging. Studies 6-8 (<i>N</i> = 671) extend the usefulness of balanced pragmatism to everyday political disagreements: cross-partisan comments about divisive issues (i.e., guns and immigration) generated more respect when they used balanced pragmatism versus logical analysis. Strikingly, people were as willing to discuss politics with opponents who used balanced pragmatism as they were with ingroup members. Balanced pragmatism appears to improve cross-partisan respect by making opponents seem more moral and rational. Results highlight connections between political psychology and wisdom research and illustrate the fruitfulness of scientist-practitioner collaborations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001554","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Synthesizing research on wisdom and a real-world practitioner intervention, we develop and test a strategy for presenting political views that fosters cross-partisan respect. This strategy of balanced pragmatism combines two aspects of "wise reasoning": balancing multiple interests and seeking pragmatic solutions. Studies 1-5 (N = 2,846) demonstrate that participants respected outgroup political elites more when they used balanced pragmatism versus other forms of messaging. Studies 6-8 (N = 671) extend the usefulness of balanced pragmatism to everyday political disagreements: cross-partisan comments about divisive issues (i.e., guns and immigration) generated more respect when they used balanced pragmatism versus logical analysis. Strikingly, people were as willing to discuss politics with opponents who used balanced pragmatism as they were with ingroup members. Balanced pragmatism appears to improve cross-partisan respect by making opponents seem more moral and rational. Results highlight connections between political psychology and wisdom research and illustrate the fruitfulness of scientist-practitioner collaborations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

在政治讨论中使用 "平衡的务实主义 "会增加跨党派的尊重。
综合有关智慧的研究和现实世界中的实践干预,我们开发并测试了一种能促进跨党派尊重的政治观点陈述策略。这种平衡务实的策略结合了 "智慧推理 "的两个方面:平衡多方利益和寻求务实的解决方案。研究 1-5(N = 2,846)表明,与其他形式的信息传递相比,参与者在使用平衡实用主义时更尊重外群体政治精英。研究 6-8(N = 671)将平衡实用主义的实用性扩展到了日常政治分歧中:关于分裂问题(如枪支和移民)的跨党派评论在使用平衡实用主义和逻辑分析时更受尊重。令人吃惊的是,人们愿意与使用平衡实用主义的反对者讨论政治问题,也愿意与本群体成员讨论政治问题。平衡实用主义似乎能让对手看起来更道德、更理性,从而提高跨党派的尊重。研究结果凸显了政治心理学与智慧研究之间的联系,并说明了科学家与实践者合作的丰硕成果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信