Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide.

3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Barnard College Columbia University New York NY USA

Bezirkskrankenhaus Straubing Straubing Germany

Carnegie School of Sport Leeds Beckett University Leeds UK

Centre for Behaviour Change Faculty of Brain Sciences University College London London UK

Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Columbia University New York NY USA

Department of Cognitive Science and Psychology School of Graduate Studies New Bulgarian University Sofia Bulgaria

Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Economics Clemson University Clemson SC USA

Department of Experimental Psychology University of Oxford Oxford UK

Department of Health Policy and Management Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health Harvard University Boston MA USA

Department of Health Policy and Management Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University New York NY USA

Department of Neuroscience and Psychology Columbia College Columbia University New York NY USA

Department of Occupational Economic and Social Psychology Faculty of Psychology University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Organization Studies Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences Tilburg University Tilburg the Netherlands

Department of Philosophy Sociology Education and Applied Psychology University of Padova Padova Italy

Department of Political Science School of General Studies Columbia University New York NY USA

Department of Psychology and Mental Health University of Manchester Manchester UK

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Faculty of Arts University of St Andrews St Andrews UK

Department of Psychology Columbia College Columbia University New York NY USA

Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts and Sciences University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez Puerto Rico USA

Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia

Department of Psychology Faculty of Croatian Studies University of Zagreb Zagreb Croatia

Department of Psychology Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Zagreb Zagreb Croatia

Department of Psychology Faculty of Life Sciences Humboldt University of Berlin Berlin Germany

Department of Psychology Faculty of Media and Communications Singidunum University Belgrade Serbia

Department of Psychology Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia

Department of Psychology Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences University of Porto Porto Portugal

Department of Psychology Faculty of Science University of Tübingen Tübingen Germany

Department of Psychology Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences University of Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands

Department of Psychology Faculty of Social Sciences Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden

Department of Psychology Harvard University Cambridge MA USA

Department of Psychology Laboratory for Experimental Psychology Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia

Department of Psychology Loyola University Chicago Chicago IL USA

Department of Psychology School of General Studies Columbia University New York NY USA

Department of Psychology St Olaf College Northfield MN USA

Department of Psychology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

Department of Psychology University of Oslo Oslo Norway

Department of Psychology University of Warwick Coventry UK

Department of Social and Organizational Psychology University of Groningen Groningen the Netherlands

Department of Social Economic and Organizational Psychology Leiden University Leiden the Netherlands

Department of Social Policy and Intervention University of Oxford Oxford UK

Department of Social Psychology Institute of Work Organisational and Social Psychology Faculty of Psychology Technische Universität Dresden Dresden Germany

Department of Sociomedical Sciences Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University New York NY USA

Division of Psychology and Language Sciences University College London London UK

Eötvös Loránd University Budapest Hungary

Evidence Based Practice Unit Anna Freud National Centre and University College London London UK

Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia

Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences University of Groningen Groningen the Netherlands

Faculty of Business Administration University of Economics Prague Czech Republic

Faculty of Psychology University of Seville Seville Spain

Harvard Business School Harvard University Cambridge MA USA

Institute of Psychology Faculty of Social and Political Sciences University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland

Instituto de Ciências Sociais e Faculdade de Psicologia Universidade de Lisboa Lisbon Portugal

Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences Zagreb Croatia

Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen the Netherlands

Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

National Institute of Mental Health Klecany Czech Republic

Policy Research Group Centre for Business Research Judge Business School University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

Political Humanities Euro Asia Program Paris Institute of Political Studies [SciencesPo] Paris France

PPR Svendborg Svendborg Kommune Svendborg Denmark

School of Education and Health Sciences Universidad Camilo José Cela Villanueva de la Cañada Madrid Spain

School of General Studies Columbia University New York NY USA

Social Health and Organisational Psychology Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands

UCL Interaction Centre Faculty of Brain Sciences University College London London UK

See more in PubMed

Méndez, E., Gómez, Á. & Tropp, L. R. When meta-perceptions are affected by intergroup processes. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 7, 237–250 (2007).

Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L. O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 14864–14872 (2020). DOI

O’Brien, T. C., Leidner, B. & Tropp, L. R. Are they for us or against us? How intergroup meta-perceptions shape foreign policy attitudes. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21, 941–961 (2018). DOI

Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R. & Judd, C. M. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. A 10, 145–158 (2015). DOI

Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 29, 222–244 (2018). DOI

Nyhan, B. Facts and myths about misperceptions. J. Econ. Perspect. 34, 220–236 (2020). DOI

Shi, F., Teplitskiy, M., Duede, E. & Evans, J. A. The wisdom of polarized crowds. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 329–336 (2019). DOI

Shapiro, J. M. & Taddy, N. M. Measuring Polarization in High-Dimensional Data: Method and Application to Congressional Speech. NBER Working Paper 22423 https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/politext.pdf (Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2015).

Luguri, J. B. & Napier, J. L. Of two minds: the interactive effect of construal level and identity on political polarization. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 972–977 (2013). DOI

Schaeffer, K. Far more Americans see ‘very strong’ partisan conflicts now than in the last two presidential election years. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/04/far-more-americans-see-very-strong-partisan-conflicts-now-than-in-the-last-two-presidential-election-years/ (4 March 2020).

Duro, J. & Teixidó-Figueras, J. World polarization in carbon emissions, potential conflict and groups: an updated revision. Energy Policy 74, 425–432 (2014). DOI

Wojcieszak, M. & Price, V. What underlies the false consensus effect? How personal opinion and disagreement affect perception of public opinion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 21, 25–46 (2009). DOI

Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020). DOI

Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J. & O’Connell, G. B. How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75, 917–937 (1998). DOI

Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Polit. Psychol. 38, 127–150 (2017). DOI

Finchilescu, G. Intergroup anxiety in interracial interaction: the role of prejudice and metastereotypes. J. Soc. Issues 66, 334–351 (2010). DOI

Klein, O. & Azzi, A. E. The strategic confirmation of meta-stereotypes: how group members attempt to tailor an out-group’s representation of themselves. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 279–293 (2001). DOI

Lau, T., Morewedge, C. K. & Cikara, M. Overcorrection for social-categorization information moderates impact bias in affective forecasting. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1340–1351 (2016). DOI

Ensari, N. & Miller, N. The out-group must not be so bad after all: the effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83, 313–329 (2002). DOI

Carothers, T. & O’Donohue, A. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization (Brookings Institution Press, 2019).

Obaidi, M., Kunst, J. R., Kteily, N., Thomsen, L. & Sidanius, J. Living under threat: mutual threat perception drives anti‐Muslim and anti‐Western hostility in the age of terrorism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 567–584 (2018). DOI

Obaidi, M., Thomsen, L. & Bergh, R. “They think we are a threat to their culture”: meta-cultural threat fuels willingness and endorsement of extremist violence against the cultural outgroup. Int. J. Confl. Violence 12, 1–13 (2018).

Ruggeri, K. et al. Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 622–633 (2020). DOI

Klein, R. A. et al. Many Labs 2: investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 443–490 (2018). DOI

Smithson, M. & Verkuilen, J. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychol. Methods 11, 54 (2006). DOI

Brooks, M. E. et al. GlmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017). DOI

Bürkner, P.-C. Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. R J. 10, 395–411 (2018). DOI

Livingstone, A. G., Fernández Rodríguez, L. & Rothers, A. “They just don’t understand us”: the role of felt understanding in intergroup relations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 119, 633–656 (2020). DOI

Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200143 (2021). DOI

Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L. & Morag, Y. Fact-checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Polit. Commun. 37, 350–375 (2020). DOI

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

The globalizability of temporal discounting