"You're Not on Our Side"... Why Moderates Are Rejected by Both Camps

University of Florida Conducts Experiments with 3,272 Adults
Moderate Compromises on Political Issues Are Viewed as "the Other Side"
"Distrust Spreads Even to Those Who Seek Common Ground"

Research has found that as political polarization intensifies, both conservative and liberal camps tend to regard moderates as belonging to the opposing side, rather than their own.

Image to aid understanding of the article. Pixabay

According to Yonhap News on July 28, research led by Dr. Julia Maimone of the University of Florida was published in the American Psychological Association (APA) journal 'Experimental Psychology.' The paper, titled "Who Is Not With Me Is Against Me: The Outgroup Effect of Moderates," borrows its title from a biblical verse. The "outgroup effect of moderates," as named by the research team, was observed particularly when participants viewed political issues as matters of morality and simultaneously perceived the opposing camp as a threatening entity.

In general, moderate viewpoints are believed to have broad public appeal and serve as a bridge to ease extreme divisions. However, the research team pointed out that while many studies have examined how conservatives and liberals judge each other in a polarized political landscape, there has been insufficient investigation into how each camp perceives moderates.

To address this question, the researchers conducted five online experiments with a total of 3,272 American adults. The experiments measured how liberal and conservative participants responded to moderate individuals or compromise policies regarding contentious issues such as abortion, presidential elections, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

When a Compromise Is Proposed on Issues Like Abortion, Presidential Election, and the Middle East, Moderates Are Seen as "the Other Side"

On the topic of abortion, a compromise policy permitting abortion only in early pregnancy was introduced. Participants with neutral leanings evaluated this as a moderate compromise, but conservatives classified it as a pro-abortion policy, and liberals labeled it as anti-abortion—each side judging it in exactly the opposite way. Similarly, when evaluating an individual supporting the same compromise, liberals identified the person as anti-abortion, while conservatives considered them pro-abortion.

The presidential election experiment was conducted five days before the United States presidential election. Participants were asked to assess a hypothetical person who equally supported both Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. Those who viewed politics as a moral issue and perceived the opposition as a threat were especially likely to categorize this person as part of the opposing camp. In a separate experiment limited to liberals, a moderate stance on Trump was categorized as conservative.

In the experiment concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict, both liberals and conservatives classified a "both sides could be acceptable" position as belonging to the opposition. However, the tendency was significantly weaker for a "neither side is acceptable" approach. The research team explained, “This suggests that people consider 'not sufficiently criticizing the opposing side' to be a stronger indicator of alignment than simply 'not sufficiently supporting their own side.'”

Moderates Could Ultimately Be Forced to Choose a Side

The research team concluded that these findings demonstrate the self-reinforcing nature of polarization. Distrust is increasingly directed not only at extremists from the opposing camp but also at those seeking to build bridges from the middle. The researchers also cited as a risk factor "the fact that moderates may realize they are rejected by all camps and eventually be pushed to choose a side."

Dr. Maimone emphasized the crucial role of moderates, noting that democracy relies heavily on compromise, negotiation, and coalition-building. She pointed out, “Moderates have long been seen as the glue bridging ideological divides. If moderates are rejected by both sides, compromise itself could start to be seen as suspect or as an act of disloyalty.”

She further stressed, “Political polarization has a tendency to expand and intensify, spreading distrust not only towards the opposing camp but also moderates. Reducing moral condemnation and perceiving the other side as less threatening in political debates would allow compromise and cooperation to become more socially acceptable.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.