Concept and origins
Robinson and colleagues (1995) showed that on issues such as abortion, both sides estimated the other's positions as more extreme than they were, and overestimated their own side's extremity as well. They attributed this to naive realism, the belief that one sees the world objectively. Fiorina and colleagues (2005) argued that Americans' actual policy attitudes are more moderate than assumed and that the culture war was exaggerated.
Misperception in politics
Westfall and colleagues (2015) reported that people with strong party identities and extreme attitudes overestimate party differences most. Levendusky and Malhotra (2016) showed that Americans perceive the other party's supporters as far more extreme than they are, and Ahler and Sood (2018) found that people badly misestimate the composition of each party's base along stereotypical lines.
Consequences and significance
Ahler (2014) reported a self-fulfilling effect in which perceiving the public as polarized makes individuals' attitudes more extreme. Moore-Berg and colleagues (2020) showed that exaggerated meta-perceptions of how much the other party dislikes us predict affective polarization and hostility. This research suggests that correcting misperceptions could be an intervention to reduce conflict.
FAQ
- What is false polarization in simple terms?
- It is wrongly believing that people on the other side hold far more extreme views than they actually do.
- Why does it matter?
- Believing the other side is more extreme than it is increases hostility and can push people toward more extreme views themselves, deepening real polarization.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: "Naive realism" in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 404–417. First evidence of false polarization.
- Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. Pearson Longman. Argues mass polarization is overstated.
- Ahler, D. J. (2014). Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 607–620. Misperceptions become self-fulfilling.
- Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R., & Judd, C. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 145–158. Who overestimates polarization.
- Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016). (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 378–391. Public misperceives partisan polarization.
- Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981. Misperceived party composition.
- Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14864–14872. Exaggerated meta-perceptions drive hostility.