Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39015548›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides.

Curtis Puryear, Emily Kubin, Chelsea Schein, Yochanan E Bigman, Pierce Ekstrom, Kurt Gray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Curtis PuryearDepartment of Management and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6067-4654
Emily KubinDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0606-8594
Chelsea ScheinDepartment of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3846-0400
Yochanan E BigmanHebrew University Business School, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190500, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0978-322X
Pierce EkstromDepartment of Political Science, University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3762-3207
Kurt GrayDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5816-2676

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This "basic morality bias" is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.

Indexed as

false polarizationmoralityperceptionpolarizationpolitics

Identifiers

PMID39015548
PMCPMC11250223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.