Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39411086›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

Why partisans feel hated: Distinct static and dynamic relationships with animosity meta-perceptions.

Jeffrey Lees, Mina Cikara, James N Druckman

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jeffrey LeesAndlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6030-4207
Mina CikaraDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6612-4474
James N DruckmanDepartment of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-6790

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partisans hold inaccurate perceptions of the other side. What drives these inaccuracies? We address this question with a focus on partisan animosity meta-perceptions (i.e. how much a partisan believes opposing partisans hate them). We argue that predictors can relate to meta-perceptions statically (e.g. at a specific point in time, do partisans who post more about politics on social media differ in their meta-perceptions relative to partisans who post less?) or dynamically (e.g. does a partisan who increases their social media political posting between two defined time points change their meta-perceptions accordingly?). Using panel data from the 2020 US presidential election, we find variables display distinct static and dynamic relationships with meta-perceptions. Notably, between individuals, posting online exhibits no (static) relationship with meta-perceptions, while within individuals, those who increased their postings over time (dynamically) became more accurate. The results make clear that overly general statements about meta-perceptions and their predictors, including social media activity, are bound to be wrong. How meta-perceptions relate to other factors often depends on contextual circumstances at a given time.

Indexed as

electionsintergroup conflictmeta-perceptionspolarizationsocial media

Identifiers

PMID39411086
PMCPMC11475464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.