Divided

• Titel: Divided
• Titelzusatz: open-mindedness and dogmatism in a polarized world
• Mitwirkende: Ottati, Victor [HerausgeberIn]
• Mitwirkende: Stern, Chadly [HerausgeberIn]
• Verf.angabe: edited by Victor Ottati and Chadly Stern
• Verlagsort: New York, NY
• Verlag: Oxford University Press
• E-Jahr: 2023
• Jahr: [2023]
• Umfang: xii, 298 Seiten
• Gesamttitel/Reihe: Series in political psychology
• Fussnoten: Includes bibliographical references and index
• ISBN: 978-0-19-765546-7
• ISBN: 978-0-19-765549-8
• Schlagwörter: (s)Intoleranz / (s)Toleranz / (s)Dogmatismus / (s)Polarisierung / (s)Sozialpsychologie
• Dokumenttyp: Aufsatzsammlung
• Sprache: eng
• Bibliogr. Hinweis: Erscheint auch als : Online-Ausgabe: Divided. - New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2023]
• Sach-SW: Comparative politics
• Sach-SW: PHILOSOPHY / Political
• Sach-SW: PHILOSOPHY / Social
• Sach-SW: POLITICAL SCIENCE / Government / Comparative
• Sach-SW: PSYCHOLOGY / Social Psychology
• Sach-SW: Social & political philosophy
• Sach-SW: Social, group or collective psychology
• Sach-SW: Soziale und politische Philosophie
• Sach-SW: Sozialpsychologie
• Sach-SW: Vergleichende Politikwissenschaften
• K10plus-PPN: 1848079400

Abstract

"Stories suggesting that the United States and many other countries throughout the world have become more "polarized" are ubiquitous in newscasts, newspapers, magazines, and other forms of media (e.g., French, 11/4/20; PBS, 4/9/21; Washington Post, 1/20/21). Although some scholars have argued that assertions of increasing political polarization are exaggerated (e.g., Fiorina, Abrams, & Pope, 2011), a wealth of empirical research buffers the claims of these reports. There have been rises in the polarization of people's political views as well as the acrimonious attitudes they hold toward others who espouse views that clash with their own (e.g., Abramowitz, 2010; Iyengar & DeBell, this volume; Iyengar et al., 2019). The term "political polarization" commonly evokes negative sentiment. However, it is important to note upfront that political polarization is not completely undesirable. Groups that polarize toward a consensus position are more likely to actually enact policies and plans endorsed by the group (Kameda & Tindale, 2006). Moreover, the existence of political attitude differences between groups can contribute to a vibrant democratic life in which alternative solutions to social problems are fully explored (Mutz, 2006). Thus, under some conditions, polarization can promote beneficial forms of social and political action. Unfortunately, though, polarization can also produce dysfunctional outcomes when it pushes groups too far apart and groups are isolated from critical sources of information. Under such conditions, polarization can produce suboptimal decisions within groups, and reduce the likelihood that groups with competing interests resolve their differences and implement compromises (Janis, 1982; Paluck, 2010). Political polarization can also decrease substantive policy reasoning, increase violence within and between states, amplify economic inequality, and impede the enactment of legislation (Ottati & Wilson, 2018). Pernicious forms of polarization are presumably exacerbated by dogmatic (or closed-minded) thinking that fails to openly consider the viability of opposing viewpoints, as well as low levels of intellectual humility in which people rarely consider the possibility that their own beliefs and opinions might be fallible. A primary purpose of this volume is to increase the scientific comprehension of open-mindedness and dogmatism. An understanding of open-mindedness and dogmatism can illuminate the nature and causes of political polarization, and provide clues regarding how one might attempt to reduce damaging aspects of polarization. Negative outcomes of polarization constitute one of the most salient challenges to be addressed in the 21st century. The promise of open-mindedness as a means to achieve greater social harmony and reduce problematic forms of polarization is timely. Indeed, it is difficult to uncover an arena of contemporary life that does not emphasize the value of open-mindedness. Open-mindedness is a prominent theme in commencement addresses at universities, and constitutes a core value of many organizations (e.g., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, National Council for Social Studies, Foundation for Critical Thinking, International Baccalaureate). Endorsement of open-mindedness is also evident in remarks from the 46th U.S. President Joseph Biden, Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, and many other prominent political and religious leaders"--

Abstract

If you tune into televised newscasts or read any newspaper, it is impossible to ignore the increased polarization of political discussion. These news reports are supported by empirical research documenting increases in social and political polarization. Polarization is not completely undesirable, as differences between groups can contribute to a vibrant democratic life in which alternative solutions to social problems are fully explored. However, polarization can also produce dysfunctional outcomes, including sub-optimal decision-making processes within groups and a lower likelihood that competing groups are able to resolve differences. Extreme forms of polarization are presumably exacerbated by dogmatic or closed-minded thinking that fails to openly consider the viability of opposing viewpoints, as well as low levels of intellectual humility in which people rarely consider the possibility that their own beliefs and opinions might be fallible. This volume aims to increase the understanding of open-mindedness and dogmatism, illuminate the nature and causes of polarization, and provide clues regarding how one might attempt to reduce pernicious forms of polarization.Bringing together a diverse group of leading psychologists, political scientists, sociologists, and communication scholars who investigate dogmatism and open-mindedness within social and political contexts, Divided: Open-Mindedness and Dogmatism in a Polarized World covers a wide range of topics including key definitions of dogmatism and open-mindedness, the emergence of affective polarization, how open-mindedness relates to attitude formation and change, the correspondence between intellectual humility and open-mindedness, and how social norms and situations shape open-minded cognition. Authors consider both the beneficial and more problematic features of open-mindedness, dogmatism, and polarization. Collectively, this volume provides a format that enables readers to learn about creative approaches to understanding dogmatism and open-mindedness and, potentially, to generate innovative solutions that reduce polarization and increase constructive social compromise in the future