ArticleNature communications2026
Dynamics of sociopolitical polarization and effects of misperception-correcting information around the 2022 Brazilian elections.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Affective polarization is little-studied in systems that present ambiguity in relevant political groups. We assess dynamic patterns in intergroup liking and perceived intelligence over 5 waves of a pre-registered survey with 4 panel waves (N ≃ 2,000-3,000) conducted before, during, and after the 2022 Brazilian elections. Given the nature of Brazil's political system, we document horizontal affective polarization of combinations of political ingroups and outgroups. These include left-right self-placed position-holders, negative partisans, and supporters of the most important presidential candidates, "Lula" and "Bolsonaro". Categorized by first-round vote intention, the latter grouping (lulistas vs. bolsonaristas) shows particularly intense affective polarization before the election campaign, which remains stable through the elections, thereafter fading approximately symmetrically. We also demonstrate that experimental treatment conditions correcting misperceptions of group stances on single, controversial policies reduce affective polarization by up to 6.66 percentage points (liking thermometer), and, in some instances, also shift policy support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.