"Abstract
When political talk surfaces in everyday chats, it puts people in a bind. Do they speak their mind, or adjust their political opinion to fit the room they are in? This research examines whether, in such moments, individuals modify their expressed stance to align with the dominant tone of the group. Across two pre-registered studies (N = 360) using AI-simulated chat experiments, modelled after familiar messaging apps, participants interacted with AI agents presented as colleagues who consistently expressed either liberal or conservative positions. In Study 1, participants randomly assigned to liberal- or conservative-leaning chat groups shifted their expressed stance in the direction of the group, demonstrating that social context alone was sufficient to alter political expression. Study 2 replicated this effect while controlling for baseline ideology. After accounting for participants' self-reported political orientation, chat environment remained a significant predictor of how they expressed themselves. Together, the results reveal that in socially bounded digital settings, political expression may not simply be a window into personal belief, but function as a socially calibrated act. While expressions on large-scale social media platforms are often scrutinised by observers, in close-knit digital spaces, perceived consensus can emerge from within. These findings suggest that political talk in everyday settings may distort one's impression of surrounding opinions, not because disagreement is absent, but because it may remain unspoken."
Related posts:
People gave up a chance to win money in order to avoid hearing from those with opposing political views (2017)
People say the president can control gas prices if the president belongs to the other party (2017)
Are some blue jeans really Democratic and others Republican? (2019)
Why Are Americans So Distrustful of Each Other? (2021)
"In 2017, around 70% of Democrats
said that
Donald Trump
voters couldn't be trusted, and around 70% of Republicans said the same of
Hillary Clinton
voters"
More
and more, executives at major corporations belong to the same politcal
party and tend to leave their companies if they are in the minority
party there (2022)
Adam Smith Meets Jonathan Haidt (on political polarization and the animosity of hostile factions) (2023)
Why Tribalism Took Over Our Politics: Social science gives an uncomfortable explanation: Our brains were made for conflict (2023)
Democrats and Republicans say economy is improving, but mostly only when someone from their party is president (2024)
Did Fracking in Pennsylvania Turn Democrats Into Republicans and Republicans Into Democrats? (2024)
Are fewer Democrats buying Teslas because of Elon Musk's political views? (2024)
Partisanship deeply colors how Americans think about trade policy, especially tariffs (2024)
Would you give up some income in order to get a job at a firm whose workers share your political opinions? (2024)
Republicans Are Feeling Good Again, Driving Up Consumer Sentiment: Democrats’ sentiment slips, but overall index ticks higher (2024)
Causes and Extent of Increasing Partisan Segregation in the U.S. – Evidence from Migration Patterns of 212 Million Voters (2025)
Red
vs. Blue Is Dividing Stock Portfolios Like Never Before: A political
gap in optimism about markets is translating into trading decisions (2025)
Can testosterone shift political preferences? (2025)
What
does conservatism mean? Fewer taxes & regulations or preserving
traditional values and communities? A Republican county in Tennessee
faces this question when farmers go against land developers (2025)
Poor whites used to vote for Democratic presidential candidates while rich whites voted Repulican. This has now reversed (2026)
Elites
moved toward democrats more than nonelites moved away: Income,
education, and occupational class in US presidential elections,
1980–2020 (2026)
Politics and Your Portfolio Shouldn’t Mix (2026)
Republicans give up on free market policies while Democrats seek money from wall street donors (2026)
See also Americans start caring more about deficits and the national debt when the party they oppose runs them up by John V. Kane of New York University and Ian G. Anson of The University of Maryland. Excerpt:
"In
the past two decades, US budget deficits have skyrocketed, and the
national debt is now over $22 trillion. But do Americans care about the
size of deficits and the national debt? In new research, John V. Kane
and Ian G. Anson find that people tend to care more about the deficits
and debts when they are increased by presidents from the party that they
oppose. Both Republicans and Democrats, they write, become less
concerned about governments running deficits when their President is in
charge."
No comments:
Post a Comment