Defusing the History Wars: Finding Common Ground in Teaching Americas National Story

Our recent survey found that people have more in common than they think when it comes to their opinions on U.S. history. However, they incorrectly think members of the opposing party have views much different than they do - this is called a perception gap and it creates imagined enemies of their fellow Americans

Outgroup Testimonials and Ingroup Validation Strengthen the Effects of Perception Gap Interventions on Affective Polarization: Evidence from a Large-Scale Experiment

Affective polarization has gripped the American social landscape, damaging interpersonal relationships and eroding political trust. One factor driving affective polarization are perception gaps, which are characterized by differences between perceived and actual outpartisan beliefs. Prior research indicates that perception gap interventions can reduce affective polarization. The present study focuses on improving these interventions by incorporating insights from psychology research on persuasion and the importance of sympathetic outgroup exemplars and in-group membership. A survey experiment with 4,800 U.S. respondents was conducted, testing different treatments incorporating perception gap statistics, outpartisan testimonials, and ingroup reactions. Results showed that the interventions were effective in reducing affective polarization, with the largest effect size observed for the treatment incorporating ingroup reactions. However, the effects of the interventions significantly decayed after one week, highlighting the need for sustainable interventions and further exploration of strategies to address affective polarization

Defusing the History Wars: Finding Common Ground in Teaching America’s National Story

This report shows that Republicans and Democrats share common ground about how to teach our national story but hold inaccurate ideas about what the other side believes about teaching U.S. history. These ‘perception gaps’ fuel distrust and are exacerbated by ‘conflict entrepreneurs’ — political and media actors who benefit from and actively stoke polarization. This report also suggests ways leaders and institutions can disrupt these cycles of misunderstanding to engage in constructive dialogue, reducing polarization