Why Facts Rarely Change Political Polarization at Work

It’s no secret that we live in a world where people are frequently polarized in their political views. In the United States, Republicans and Democrats are frequently seen as opposites with virtually no overlapping values. Indeed, it has devolved into members of each political party calling members of the other immoral or evil, and “conservative” and “liberal” have become derogatory labels. This extreme perspective can leave coworkers feeling alienated from those who do not share their political affiliation or general set of values.

Let’s turn to psychology to help understand what is going on. First, consider the outgroup homogeneity bias. This refers to the universal, and apparently innate, tendency for people to view members of groups to which they themselves do not belong (outgroups) as more similar to each other compared to how they view members of their own groups (ingroups). In other words, we more easily recognize the diversity across those who comprise our ingroups than we do our outgroups. This makes it easy to describe everyone in the “other” group in concise ways that do not reflect reality.

Applying this phenomenon to politics, Republicans view Democrats as all sharing a particular set of beliefs and values, but recognize that among Republicans there is a good deal of variation. Of course, the same tendency applies to Democrats when they think and talk about Republicans. The outgroup homogeneity bias helps ensure continued polarization, as we fail to recognize that not all Republicans and not all Democrats think alike. So, we likely are closer in opinions and values to at least some members of the other party than we assume we are.

How Morality-as-Cooperation Theory Explains Political Values

Next, let’s examine the foundation for liberal versus conservative values. Morality-as-cooperation (MAC) theory describes that humans, through the long process of evolution, became equipped with inherent approaches to how to relate and cooperate with each other. These approaches include preferring to allocate resources to kin, working together for a shared cause, coordinating social exchange for fairness, recognition of prior possession, and avoiding and resolving conflict through displays of bravery, dominance, or submission. These approaches are universal, but each individual prioritizes and applies them differently, which helps explain differences in political values.

Typically (but not always) conservatives most value family, patriotism, the military and law enforcement agencies, a strong border, and lower taxes. Viewed through the lens of MAC theory, such individuals prioritize allocating resources to kin (support for family), avoiding and resolving conflict through displays of bravery or dominance (patriotism and military) or submission (deference to authority and hierarchy), and recognition of prior possession (resistance to taxation).

Typically (but not always) liberals most value care for others (including non-kin and the environment that is left to future generations), egalitarianism, and equity in distribution of resources. Viewed through the lens of MAC theory, such individuals prioritize coordinating social exchange for fairness (a strong social safety net through taxing wealth, respecting individual rights across diversity), and recognition of prior possession (support for the rights of indigenous peoples and those whose history was slavery).

Notice that liberals and conservatives share emphasis on some of the same values, but those values are applied or expressed differently. For example, recognition of prior possession can be applied to one’s own possessions (strong property rights) or the original possessors of some resource (indigenous peoples’ claims to land, or slaves’ claims to the output of their labor). Expression of the approach to ensuring fairness may take the form of being concerned over whether some people are receiving government benefits who do not deserve them or take the form of believing that it is unfair that some people have so much while others suffer without enough. And, both conservatives and liberals believe in working together for a shared cause, yet those causes sometimes differ, and so different groups form to promote those causes (e.g., family values, reproductive freedom, gun rights, environmental protection).

Frequently, liberals and conservatives label members of the other group as immoral. Instead, it appears that each group has a different definition of morality. I personally believe that virtually every American sees themselves as moral and wants what’s best for the country. The disconnect comes from the details behind those general convictions (what is moral, and what is best for our country). Then the differences are highlighted and incorporated into the social identities of those who take on a social label, with mass media eager to reinforce the idea that membership in one camp means being embattled in an existential struggle with fellow Americans wearing the other label (see this explanation).

How to Relate to Coworkers With Different Political Views

So, with regard to coworkers with different political views, what can you do?

1. Recognize that everyone is the hero in their own story. It’s easy to feel self-righteous and villainize another person. The challenge is in recognizing their shared humanity; everyone wants to be happy and wants to have a country of which they can be proud. We all share the same underlying set of approaches for interacting as members of a society (the MAC theory), but we differ in how we prioritize those approaches and how each is expressed.
2. Recognize the reality of the outgroup homogeneity bias. I imagine that as you read my general description of “typical” liberals and conservatives, you bristled at my characterization of whichever group with which you identify. Why? Because you recognize how crude my description was in light of the individual variation that actually exists. Look for that diversity among the coworkers who do not share your political views. It’s natural to focus on their differences from you. The challenge is to intentionally look for similarities, which likely exist in abundance beyond the domains of “liberal” vs. “conservative” or Republican vs. Democrat.
3. Consider the results of research on influencing another person’s opinions. Using facts, logic, and argument does not work. Why? Our self-identity is tied to our beliefs, and when they are challenged, we double down. Instead, try genuine interest in understanding the other person’s perspective; exactly what it is, where it came from, and why it’s important to them. Research indicates that genuine curiosity results in the other person lowering their defenses and, ultimately, being more open to considering differing views.

Workplace Dynamics Essential Reads

Your Office Romance Isn’t Just Between Two People

How Listening Helps Build a Shared Reality

In the end, you and your coworkers will never see eye to eye, but hopefully it helps to realize that we share a mental framework that has allowed humans to live in groups for a very long time. Where the differences lie is in relative priority and how we apply or express those underlying approaches to morality.