A COMMON ENEMY ‘MAY NOT UNITE AMERICANS’
In a polarised society, the presence of an external threat could further inflame divisions between Republicans and Democrats, a new study shows
Americans have become so politically polarised that a common enemy could no longer unite them and may actually further divide them, new research suggests.
Conflicts between Democrats and Republicans were not reduced when they were exposed to a shared external threat, an online study conducted during the 2020 US-Iran crisis shows.
Instead, the study found that a common enemy – both in media reports and in real-world events – triggered among Republicans a deeper distrust of Democrats than they started out with. Democrats did not show a similar inclination.
“The results from this study suggest that exposure to a shared enemy may not be sufficient to eliminate partisan boundaries to information sharing and cooperation, and may even amplify political tensions – particularly among Republicans,” the research, published in Scientific Reports last month, concluded.
“These results suggest that political narratives about global, combative conflicts – which politicians often invoke to rally patriotic support – may have the unintended consequence of increasing polarisation within a nation.”
The study was designed by psychologists and sociologists from the University of California, Berkeley; Princeton; and the University of Copenhagen, among other institutions. It surveyed 1,670 Republicans and Democrats between October 2019 and January 2020 and tested their attitudes towards the opposing party after being exposed to neutral information, patriotic information or information about foreign enemies.
The result indicated that the Republicans’ willingness to learn from a supposed member of the Democratic Party (in fact, a programmed bot) – suggesting a likelihood to cooperate – dropped significantly after reading a “common enemy” article about Russia, Iran and China conspiring against the US compared to those reading a neutral, apolitical article. The study used Reuters accounts as neutral stories “be- cause previous studies indicate it is equally trusted and well-respected by Republicans and Democrats”.
Results did not change much even in the case of reading a “patriotic” article about an Independence Day event.
The more respondents described themselves as conservative, the stronger the effect was.
The study coincided with the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by the US on the orders of President Donald Trump on January 3, 2020, and the subsequent international crisis.
Researchers found that after the attack Republican participants identified themselves much more strongly as American – and were much less likely to cooperate with Democrats.
On the other hand, Democrats’ willingness to use information provided by Republicans did not show a significant change after reading the “common enemy” article and increased after reading
Under such conditions, the threat of a common enemy may increase political tensions among rival groups
AUTHORS OF THE STUDY
the patriotic article, compared to the control group who read neutral information.
The researchers said the experiment demonstrated a tendency in the US towards “asymmetric political polarisation” – especially among Republicans – and that the two parties’ views of what it means to be “American” may be what drove the different reactions.
In an extremely polarised society like the US today, tensions may have become high enough that partisans perceived their political rivals as more closely connected to the external enemy than the nation itself, the authors said. “Under such conditions, the threat of a common enemy may increase political tensions among rival groups,” they said.