A Polarized Discourse: Effects of Opinion Differentiation and Structural Differentiation on Communication

In Western societies, many polarized debates extend beyond the area of opinions, having consequences for social structures within society. Such segmentation of society into opinion-based groups may hinder communication, making it difficult to reconcile viewpoints across group boundaries. In three representative samples from Australia and the Netherlands ( N = 1,206), we examine whether perceived polarization predicts the quality (harmony, comfort, and experience of negative emotions) and quantity (avoidance of the issue) of communication with others in the community. We distinguish between perceived opinion differentiation (i.e., the extent to which opinions in society are divided) and perceived structural differentiation (i.e., the extent to which society fissions into subgroups). Results show that although opinion differentiation positively predicts the discussion of societal issues, the belief that these opinions reflect a deeper societal divide predicts negative communication expectations and intentions. We discuss how polarization perceptions may reinforce communicative behaviors that catalyze actual polarization processes.

Optimizing polarization dehazing

In the process of haze removal by the polarization method, it is very important to obtain accurate polarization information. On the one hand, the influence of noise can be effectively suppressed by appropriately weighted amplifying the airlight degree of polarization and the airlight corresponding to an object at an infinite distance. On the other hand, the scattering energy in channels [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] is larger, so it can reflect the actual polarization information violently. Analysis indicates the appropriately weighted amplification for the airlight degree of polarization in these two channels that can improve their estimation accuracy to a certain extent, it makes the color of the restored images more natural, and the details of the images are also more abundant. Moreover, in some special scenes, the polarization of the direct transmission could not be ignored on account of its important contribution to the total polarization. Hence, when the polarization of the direct transmission needs to be involved, only the polarization of direct transmission that contributes significantly to the total polarization is considered, and the polarization of the direct transmission in other scenes is ignored. This can still effectively eliminate the color distortion of the special scenes in the recovery results, and can greatly reduce the time consumption.

Understanding and combating misperceived polarization

By many accounts politics is becoming more polarized, yielding dire consequences for democracy and trust in government. Yet a growing body of research on so-called false polarization finds that perceptions of ‘what the other side believes’ are inaccurate—specifically, overly pessimistic—and that these inaccuracies exacerbate intergroup conflict. Through a review of existing work and a reanalysis of published data, we (i) develop a typology of the disparate phenomena that are labelled ‘polarization’, (ii) use that typology to distinguish actual from (mis)perceived polarization, and (iii) identify when misperceived polarization gives rise to actual polarization (e.g. extreme issue attitudes and prejudice). We further suggest that a specific psychological domain is ideal for developing corrective interventions: meta-perception , one's judgement of how they are perceived by others. We review evidence indicating that correcting meta-perception inaccuracies is effective at reducing intergroup conflict and discuss methods for precisely measuring meta-perception accuracy. We argue that the reputational nature of meta-perception provides a motivational mechanism by which individuals are sensitive to the truth, even when those truths pertain to the ‘other side’. We conclude by discussing how these insights can be integrated into existing research seeking to understand polarization and its negative consequences. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms’.

Understanding and Combating Misperceived Polarization

By many accounts politics is becoming more polarized, yielding dire consequences for democracy and trust in government. Yet a growing body of research on so-called “false polarization” finds that perceptions of “what the other side believes” are inaccurate–specifically, overly pessimistic–and that these inaccuracies exacerbate intergroup conflict. Through a review of existing work and a reanalysis of published data, we (i) develop a typology of the disparate phenomena that are labeled “polarization,” (ii) use that typology to distinguish actual from (mis)perceived polarization, and (iii) identify when misperceived polarization gives rise to actual polarization (e.g., extreme issue attitudes and prejudice). We further suggest that a specific psychological domain is ideal for developing corrective interventions: meta-perception, one’s judgment of how they are perceived by others. We review evidence indicating that correcting meta-perception inaccuracies is effective at reducing intergroup conflict, and discuss methods for precisely measuring meta-perception accuracy. We argue that the reputational nature of meta-perception provides a motivational mechanism by which individuals are sensitive to the truth, even when those truths pertain to the “other side.” We conclude by discussing how these insights can be integrated into existing research seeking to understand polarization and its negative consequences.