Sometimes you just can't win, and that goes double for people navigating the increasingly polarized political landscape in the United States.
Having nuanced opinions of politics in the U.S. turns out to be a very lonely, and unpopular, road, according to a recent study from a research team that includes assistant professor Aviva Philipp-Muller from Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business.
Published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, the study found that people who express ambivalence about political topics - ranging from COVID-19 mask mandates, immigration and the death penalty - were not only disliked by people who disagreed with their view, but they also were less liked by people who agreed with their overall position but feel their position isn't strong enough.
"The study exposes a mismatch between expectation and social reality," says Aviva Philipp-Muller. "Taking a nuanced position on political issues and coming to a middle ground might seem like a sensible way to bridge political divides, which is what participants in our study expected, but the reality is political polarization has turned those kinds of stances into a social disincentive."
Philipp-Muller was part of team of researchers from the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, DePaul University and Ohio State University that surveyed more than 1,000 Americans on their opinions of several political issues and measured their agreement with different pro- and con- arguments on the issue to assess what side they fell on and if they were more or less ambivalent towards those views.
According to the study, ambivalence does not preclude people from taking an overall position on one side or another, but is determined when people can accept points to both sides of an argument or do not wholeheartedly agree with all supporting points for a position.
The research team ran an experiment looking at what people thought of those with different political opinions.
Contrary to participants' expectations, people expressing ambivalence about political issues can undermine how well a person is liked, to the point of sharing nuanced opinion being a social risk. Not only were ambivalent people disliked more by those who had different political opinion as them, they also proved to be unpopular with people who largely held the same beliefs.
For example, people might view ambivalent targets as lacking conviction or undermining their side's ability to pursue important political goals (in other words, "win") without compromise.
The study offers insight in the interpersonal dynamics of political polarization and the ramifications could be chilling.
The authors say that while people who hold nuanced opinions might think their measured take might be well-received by others, they could actually experience social costs that deter them from expressing their views.
This, the study warns, could leave "the political arena to more extreme actors on all sides."
"We are next hoping to look at whether nuance ever leads to social benefits," says Philipp-Muller. "For example, outside of political domain, when talking about brand preferences or other personal choices, can there ever be an upside to expressing ambivalence?"
