{"title":"数据可视化的方式如何影响和纠正对政治两极化的(错误)认知。","authors":"JonRobert Tartaglione, Lee de-Wit","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While the mechanisms underlying polarization are complex, scholars have consistently found a pervasive overestimation of <i>perceptions</i> of polarization to be a contributing factor. We argue that one mitigation strategy that can work at scale to address such misperceptions might be relatively straightforward: better data visualizations of cross-party attitudes on key issues. In a large-scale (<i>N</i> = 6603), international replication, we find that <i>mode of presentation</i>—or the manner in which data are visually presented—plays a significant role in moderating perceptions of polarization, even for longstanding, divisive issues for which partisans would likely hold strong prior beliefs. Additionally, we find the effects that different modes of presentation have on issue-specific polarization also extend to participant beliefs about <i>overall</i> interparty polarization, with certain modes proving capable of not only promoting less polarized views but also enabling more accurate estimates of the extent to which political groups agree. Finally, our findings also suggest that the manner in which intergroup data are visualized may also exert influence over the degree to which political groups are <i>essentialized—</i>a finding with implications for not only political perception but also for apolitical social psychological phenomena such as dehumanization.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12787","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How the manner in which data is visualized affects and corrects (mis)perceptions of political polarization\",\"authors\":\"JonRobert Tartaglione, Lee de-Wit\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjso.12787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While the mechanisms underlying polarization are complex, scholars have consistently found a pervasive overestimation of <i>perceptions</i> of polarization to be a contributing factor. We argue that one mitigation strategy that can work at scale to address such misperceptions might be relatively straightforward: better data visualizations of cross-party attitudes on key issues. In a large-scale (<i>N</i> = 6603), international replication, we find that <i>mode of presentation</i>—or the manner in which data are visually presented—plays a significant role in moderating perceptions of polarization, even for longstanding, divisive issues for which partisans would likely hold strong prior beliefs. Additionally, we find the effects that different modes of presentation have on issue-specific polarization also extend to participant beliefs about <i>overall</i> interparty polarization, with certain modes proving capable of not only promoting less polarized views but also enabling more accurate estimates of the extent to which political groups agree. Finally, our findings also suggest that the manner in which intergroup data are visualized may also exert influence over the degree to which political groups are <i>essentialized—</i>a finding with implications for not only political perception but also for apolitical social psychological phenomena such as dehumanization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48304,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12787\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12787\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12787","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
How the manner in which data is visualized affects and corrects (mis)perceptions of political polarization
While the mechanisms underlying polarization are complex, scholars have consistently found a pervasive overestimation of perceptions of polarization to be a contributing factor. We argue that one mitigation strategy that can work at scale to address such misperceptions might be relatively straightforward: better data visualizations of cross-party attitudes on key issues. In a large-scale (N = 6603), international replication, we find that mode of presentation—or the manner in which data are visually presented—plays a significant role in moderating perceptions of polarization, even for longstanding, divisive issues for which partisans would likely hold strong prior beliefs. Additionally, we find the effects that different modes of presentation have on issue-specific polarization also extend to participant beliefs about overall interparty polarization, with certain modes proving capable of not only promoting less polarized views but also enabling more accurate estimates of the extent to which political groups agree. Finally, our findings also suggest that the manner in which intergroup data are visualized may also exert influence over the degree to which political groups are essentialized—a finding with implications for not only political perception but also for apolitical social psychological phenomena such as dehumanization.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.