On the basis of construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010), we hypothesized that political polarization on controversial issues may be reduced by increasing abstract mental construal. Using the issue of the “Ground Zero Mosque” and political polarization on it as an example, we first established that liberals and conservatives hold opposing attitudes toward building a mosque near Ground Zero (Study 1). Polarized attitudes were significantly reduced by increasing the abstract (vs. concrete) level of construal, by having participants answer a series of why (vs. how) questions before considering the issue (Study 2) or by having participants read an article about the Ground Zero Mosque in a disfluent (vs. fluent) format (Study 3). We conclude that abstract mental construal may potentially provide a means for dialogue and compromise on divisive political issues, and implications for political discourse are discussed.
AgerströmJ.BjörklundF. (2009). Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Social Cognition, 27, 261–282
2.
AllportG. W.RossJ. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443.
3.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19, 161–167.
4.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M.EpleyN.EyreR. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 569–576.
5.
BatsonC. D.ScheonradeP. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: 1) validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430–447.
6.
BonannoG. A.JostJ. T. (2006). Conservative shift among high-exposure survivors of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 311–323.
7.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840.
8.
DehghaniM.GratchJ.SachdevaS.SagaeK. (2011). Analyzing conservative and liberal blogs related to the construction of the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. In CarlsonL.HoelscherC.ShipleyT. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1853–1858). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
9.
Diemand-YaumanC.OppenheimerD. M.VaughanE. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118, 114–118.
10.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
11.
FreitasA. L.GollwitzerP. M.TropeY. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739–752.
12.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351–367.
13.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
14.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
HassinR. R.FergusonM. J.ShidlovskiD.GrossT. (2007). Subliminal exposure to national flags affects political thought and behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 19757–19761.
17.
HendersonM. D. (2011). Mere physical distance and integrative agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 7–15.
18.
HernandezI.PrestonJ. (2012). Disfluency and disconfirmation: When changing the font changes your mind. Unpublished manuscript. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
19.
HongJ.LeeA. Y. (2010). Feeling mixed but not torn: The moderating role of construal level in mixed emotions appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 456–472.
20.
InbarY.PizarroD. A.BloomP. (2009). Conservativesare more easily disgusted. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 714–725.
21.
Janoff-BulmanR. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 120–128.
22.
JiaL.HirtE. R.KarpenS. C. (2009). Lessons from a faraway land: The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1127–1131.
23.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–338.
24.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
25.
KrossE.GrossmannI. (2012). Boosting wisdom: Distance from the self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 43–48.
26.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.ChaikenS. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99, 32–51.
27.
McFarlandS. G. (1989). Religious orientations and the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 324–336.
SeilerC. (2010). Siena poll: Majority still opposes mosque. Capitol Confidential Blog.
32.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2008). Fluency and the detection of distortions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26, 791–799.
33.
SternP. C.DietzT.GuagnanoG. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 984–1001.
34.
ThórisdóttirH.JostJ. T. (2011). Motivated closed–mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 32, 785–811.
35.
TorelliC.KaikatiA. (2009). Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: The role of abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 231–247.
36.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological science. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
37.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.
38.
WakslakC.TropeY. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52–58.
