In an era when political polarization dominates the conversation, expressing nuanced opinions may seem like a bridge-building strategy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology We provide evidence that people who express ambiguous attitudes on political issues may pay a social price for their nuanced opinions: those who express their positions in an ambiguous manner are often perceived as less likeable, less warm, and less competent. This finding appears across a range of policy topics.
Previous research has shown that people often expect that expressing ambivalence will be socially valued, especially in controversial situations. This expectation makes intuitive sense: when people see that a person is aware of arguments on both sides of an issue, they may perceive that person as more thoughtful, competent, and less biased. The researchers aimed to test whether these positive expectations matched social reality.
“I think a big part of political polarization is the marginalization of people with more nuanced views and the amplification of people with more extreme views. We were interested in whether everyday social dynamics contribute to polarization by encouraging the expression of certain kinds of opinions — one-sided opinions — and discouraging the expression of other opinions — opposing opinions,” said Joseph J. Schieb, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business and an author of the study.
In an initial pilot study, the researchers recruited 77 student participants and presented them with a fictional social scenario in which participants were asked to imagine finding themselves in a new social environment where they wanted to make friends and be liked. During the conversation, political topics such as COVID-19 mask mandates or U.S. immigration policy came up, and participants were asked how likely they were to express their opinion in two ways: by taking a clear one-sided position or by expressing a preference while acknowledging the opposing side’s arguments.
Participants indicated the likelihood of choosing each approach, providing insight into their expectations about how expressing ambivalence would affect social status. Results showed a strong preference for taking a two-sided, ambivalent stance over a one-sided one, suggesting that participants believed ambivalence was socially beneficial.
Next, to explore the actual social effects of expressing ambivalence on polarizing political issues, the researchers recruited 618 participants through the online platform Mechanical Turk. Participants first completed a survey assessing their positions and ambivalence on US immigration policy, the death penalty, or COVID-19 mask mandates.
Participants then encountered a fictitious target who expressed either one-sided (univalent) or two-sided (ambivalent) opinions on the same issue. The targets were designed to either agree or disagree with participants’ overall stance. The researchers ensured that overall stances and attitude extremities were constant across conditions to isolate the effects of ambivalence. Participants rated their liking for the target, their perceptions of the target’s warmth, competence, and interest in meeting the target.
Findings revealed that ambivalent targets were generally less liked than one-sided targets, especially by participants who agreed with the target’s overall position but who were low in ambivalence. This pattern was consistent across topics, with some variation in strength.
Not surprisingly, participants preferred people who agreed with them over people who took opposing positions, but expressing ambivalent feelings about people who disagreed with participants’ positions did not increase their liking.
“We wondered whether things might be more balanced, that some people might like ambivalent people (vs. non-ambivalent people) less and others more,” Seeve told PsyPost. “We wondered whether certain groups of participants might particularly like ambivalent people — people who don’t agree with the ambivalent person’s overall position, that is, people with whom the ambivalent person generates some common ground, and/or people who are ambivalent themselves. However, we didn’t find strong evidence to support that possibility.”
Seeve and his colleagues sought to replicate and extend their findings by manipulating perceived polarization on a single issue: US immigration reform. The researchers framed the issue in two ways: as highly polarizing (immigration from Mexico) and as less polarizing (immigration from Canada). They recruited 594 participants through the online platform Prolific. Participants first completed a survey about their stance and ambivalence on the issue of immigration from Mexico or Canada, to which they were randomly assigned.
Participants were then presented with targets who expressed either one-sided or two-sided views on immigration, though they agreed with the target’s overall stance. Participants rated the targets’ likeability, warmth, competence, and interest in meeting them.
The results showed that, consistent with previous findings, ambivalent targets were less preferred than one-sided targets regardless of whether the issue was more or less polarized. Participants with higher levels of ambivalence were more tolerant of ambivalent targets, whereas participants with lower ambivalence clearly preferred one-sided targets. These findings reinforced the idea that expressing ambivalence generally reduces social desirability, even when the issue is less polarized.
“People pay a social price for expressing nuanced and ambivalent views on political issues,” Shive explained. “They are less liked by members of their political peer group than those who hold more polarized, one-sided views, and so are often less popular overall. This may be part of the reason why moderate views are underrepresented and why political debate seems more extreme.”
However, as with all research, there are some caveats. The study participants were primarily American, and results may vary across different cultural backgrounds. Also, the study focused on a specific political issue. Future research could explore other topics, including non-political issues, to see if the findings hold true.
“Results may vary in other cultural contexts, historical periods, or political systems,” Seev noted. “Our findings are most applicable to the contemporary United States and other contexts that are comparable in politics and culture to the United States.”
As for the long-term goals of this research field, Seev hopes to “increase the representation of nuanced opinions in political debates and raise the profile of those who express them.” “Part of that is finding ways to make people more receptive to opposing views from members of their in-group. And part of it is understanding how people use opposing views to express opinions across political positions.”
“Our paper resonates with and extends other recent work showing how people’s political beliefs affect who they like and want to associate with, and how these processes contribute to political polarization,” he added. “For example, according to Hussain and Wheeler (2024), people who are receptive to out-group views pay a social cost; according to Goldenberg et al. (2022), people prefer to interact with members of their in-group who hold more (less) extreme views.”
The study, “Supporting both positions, satisfying neither: Individuals who take opposing positions face unexpected social costs in political conflict,” was authored by Joseph J. Siev, Aviva Philipp-Muller, Geoffrey RO Durso, and Duane T. Wegener.
