Identity-based depolarization interventions can carry unintended side effects

Evidence

Sometimes, interventions may reduce some aspects of polarization while creating other problems. For example, priming common identities is generally successful at reducing polarization, but some common identities can have negative side effects. In one study, priming American identity led to negative attitudes towards immigrants198. In another, creating a common identity between Republicans and Democrats about mistrust of a foreign power actually reduced cooperation between them17. More broadly, even if interventions can promote civility, they also may inadvertently delegitimize the views on either side200. — Rachel Hartman et al., Interventions to Reduce Partisan…, 37

Categorization

  • XREF: Tracks the skeptical pattern of the 2025 PNAS depolarization-is-hard finding the reader is benchmarking against - intervention wins can be local and carry costs. — connects to: Depolarization interventions can succeed while creating unintended harms.; Identity-affirming networks can paradoxically worsen distress for stigmatized groups. — Goleen Samari, Islamophobia and Public Health in the…, 53; Stacking multiple depolarization interventions does not amplify their effect on out-party warmth. — Derek E. Holliday, Yphtach Lelkes, and Sean J. Westwood, Why Depolarization Is Hard: Evaluating…, 61 (+1 more)
  • SEED: Possible essay on the ‘unintended consequences’ of ingroup-commonality invocations in depolarization work.

Broader Connections