Political moderates may be perceived as belonging to the opposing ideology by both sides

What is it about?

Common intuition suggests that expressing moderate views would allow people to appeal to the broadest audience possible. But is that really the case? Do moderates please all sides or please no side? Across five preregistered studies (N = 3,272), we show that people holding a partisan view on a sociopolitical issue perceive moderates (i.e., people disclosing a genuinely non-extreme position) as belonging to the out-group ideology. We find that the “moderate as out-group” effect occurs when sociopolitical issues are moralized and, at the same time, the opposing side is perceived to be a threat. We also present evidence that the effect is due to partisans’ perception that moderates lack out-group hate, rather than lack in-group love. In other words, partisans perceive that moderates agree with—or simply do not condemn—the opposing (immoral and threatening) ideology, rather than disagree with their own.

Featured Image

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Democratic systems depend on compromise, negotiation, and coalition-building, and moderates can help bridge ideological divides. Our findings reveal a potential obstacle to this process: Rather than viewing moderates as common ground, partisans may treat them as members of the opposing side. If moderates are rejected by both sides, they may feel increasing pressure to abandon the political center and align with one camp, further weakening the moderate base that helps democratic societies compromise and deepening political polarization.

Perspectives