"Us vs. Them" Part 2: Bridging the Divide

In a 2019 survey conducted by More in Common, over 80 percent of Republicans and Democrats characterized members of the opposite party as "brainwashed" and "hateful."  Less than a quarter said adherents of the other party were "honest," "reasonable" or "caring." 

Contrast this with the GoFundMe story of Damien, a 13-year-old foster child who needed a new kidney.  His teacher sought help, which came from 2,100 mostly small donations.   Damien is now the recipient of a successful transplant.

"Us vs. Them" thinking creates seemingly impossible gaps, yet we often help those who were not part of "us." 

Yale’s Geoffrey Cohen explored how self-described liberals and conservatives reacted to two welfare policy proposals.  One offered benefits much better and the other much worse than currently existed.  No surprise - liberals preferred the more generous and conservatives the less generous option.  Then, with new groups of partisans, he presented the same proposals but labeled the more generous one as Republican and the less generous one as Democratic.   Conservatives preferred the more generous and liberals the less generous one, each denying party preference impacted their decision.  Apparently, we only like what comes from “us.”

We distort our picture of "them."  In Cohen’s experiment, each party’s adherents believed only the other party would choose based on party loyalty.  Robert Sapolsky concludes in Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst that we are more trusting of "us," more prosocial, more forgiving, and rationalize our own mistakes while seeing the mistakes of "them" as just how "they" are.  Our antipathy toward "them" is heightened when we are part of a group since we fear ostracism by our fellow group members.  As theologian Reinhold Niebhur said: "The group is more arrogant, hypocritical, self-centered and more ruthless in the pursuit of its ends than the individual."  Joshua Greene, in Moral Tribes, says that "us vs. them" identification fosters beliefs that become tribal "badges of honor." 

But change is possible.  Thirteen year-old Damien ceased being part of "them" when people saw him as an individual – triggering innate prosocial instincts.  We saw this as well in the outcry, irrespective of party affiliation, over the separation of young immigrant children from their parents.  Researchers at UCLA are exploring the Sanskrit notion of kama muta – the sudden, intense sense of oneness we can feel with others.   Thus, one of the most powerful ways to defuse “them” thinking is to see each of “them” as a person, with a name, history, likes, loves, challenges and tragedies. 

Another strategy is perspective taking.  Having subjects assume the perspective of older people has been shown to reduce age bias.  Men told to imagine a strong woman with positive characteristics demonstrate less gender bias.

Psychologist Gordon Allport proposed "intergroup contact theory" in the 1950s - the hypothesis that sustained contact with "them" from different races or nationalities could reduce conflict.  Research, including a meta-analysis of over 500 studies, supports the theory when bringing "us" and "them" together is well-managed.  When people from different groups have equal status in the encounter, interact personally to get to know each other, share a common goal, work collaboratively and have support for the effort, decreased hostility is more likely.  For example, contact increases trust between white and black police officers who work together.  It is also at the heart of the Better Angels project, which fosters understanding and decreases stereotyping by bringing conservatives and liberals together to talk and find common ground.

Another technique is reappraisal: people are asked to stop, think and view others in a more detached, less excitable way.  Princeton professor Susan Fiske has found that the amygdala’s almost instantaneous subconscious emotional reaction to “them” can be overcome when we give the brain’s logical center time to over-ride the initial negative response.

Our tendency to oppose “them” can also be weakened by dealing with confirmation bias.  In a study recounted in The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making by Scott Plous, ROTC students and peace activists were given the same report detailing breakdowns in securing our nuclear arsenal.  Among the ROTC students, 84 percent said the report gave them more confidence we could manage nuclear weapons.  One hundred percent of the peace activists said it gave them less confidence.  Both groups searched for evidence that bolstered their initial view.  The way out is to admit we could be wrong.  When people summon up humility, they can question assumptions, look for alternative explanations, and engage in thoughtful, open listening to “them.”  

These techniques are hard - but possible.  Still, some divides seem just too deep. Can pro-choice and pro-life adherents ever come together?  Can gun-rights and gun-control advocates find common ground?  Can “Black Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter” true believers ever hear each other?  Part 3 addresses an approach to these seemingly unsolvable “us” vs. “them” problems.

Photo Credit: - t-chick-mcclure-unsplash.com