Jul 27, 2026 07:16 PM
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1137365
INTRO: In the increasingly polarized political realm, moderates may be viewed as disloyal by both conservatives and liberals when the opposing side seems threatening, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
“Democratic systems rely heavily on compromise, negotiation and coalition building, and moderates are often seen as the ‘glue’ that helps bridge ideological divides,” said lead researcher Giulia Maimone, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in marketing at the University of Florida. “If moderates are rejected by both sides, compromise itself may begin to look suspicious or disloyal.”
The study included five online experiments with more than 3,200 participants in the United States. The participants were asked about the strength of their own liberal or conservative beliefs about some politically divisive issues, including abortion, Israel and Palestine, or voting choices for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
In one experiment, the participants were asked to consider moderate policies that allowed abortions in the first trimester of a pregnancy. Both pro-life and pro-choice participants viewed the moderate policies as supporting the opposing side.
In another experiment conducted five days before the 2024 presidential election, the participants were asked to consider the beliefs of a hypothetical individual who equally supported both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The participants also were asked if they considered voting for one candidate over the other to be a moral issue and if they would feel threats to themselves, someone they know, or for society at large if the candidate from the opposing party was elected.
Across the experiments, participants viewed moderate policies or beliefs as supporting the opposing side, especially when the participants held more extreme political beliefs, felt threatened by the opposing side and viewed political issues through a moral lens. This “moderate as out-group effect” is driven by perceptions that moderates fail to repudiate or condemn the opposing side, Maimone said.
“Our findings suggest polarization can become self-perpetuating because distrust spreads not only toward extremists on opposing sides but also toward people attempting to bridge divides in the middle,” Maimone said.
Another danger of viewing moderates as belonging to the opposing side is that moderates may realize they are rejected by all sides, and become incentivized to pick a side, further deepening polarization. However, there is still some hope for reducing polarization and rebuilding the middle ground, Maimone said.
“Reducing the moralized language around some political debates and not demonizing political opponents so they would seem less threatening could help make political cooperation feel more socially acceptable,” Maimone said. “Over time, this may help create the conditions for real dialogue across political parties where nuance and compromise are valued rather than punished, potentially reducing polarization.”
Article: “Whoever Is Not With Me Is Against Me: The ‘Moderate as Out-Group’ Effect,” Giulia Maimone, PhD, University of Florida, and Craig R. M. McKenzie, PhD, University of California, San Diego. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, published online July 27, 2026. (MORE - no ads)
INTRO: In the increasingly polarized political realm, moderates may be viewed as disloyal by both conservatives and liberals when the opposing side seems threatening, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
“Democratic systems rely heavily on compromise, negotiation and coalition building, and moderates are often seen as the ‘glue’ that helps bridge ideological divides,” said lead researcher Giulia Maimone, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in marketing at the University of Florida. “If moderates are rejected by both sides, compromise itself may begin to look suspicious or disloyal.”
The study included five online experiments with more than 3,200 participants in the United States. The participants were asked about the strength of their own liberal or conservative beliefs about some politically divisive issues, including abortion, Israel and Palestine, or voting choices for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
In one experiment, the participants were asked to consider moderate policies that allowed abortions in the first trimester of a pregnancy. Both pro-life and pro-choice participants viewed the moderate policies as supporting the opposing side.
In another experiment conducted five days before the 2024 presidential election, the participants were asked to consider the beliefs of a hypothetical individual who equally supported both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The participants also were asked if they considered voting for one candidate over the other to be a moral issue and if they would feel threats to themselves, someone they know, or for society at large if the candidate from the opposing party was elected.
Across the experiments, participants viewed moderate policies or beliefs as supporting the opposing side, especially when the participants held more extreme political beliefs, felt threatened by the opposing side and viewed political issues through a moral lens. This “moderate as out-group effect” is driven by perceptions that moderates fail to repudiate or condemn the opposing side, Maimone said.
“Our findings suggest polarization can become self-perpetuating because distrust spreads not only toward extremists on opposing sides but also toward people attempting to bridge divides in the middle,” Maimone said.
Another danger of viewing moderates as belonging to the opposing side is that moderates may realize they are rejected by all sides, and become incentivized to pick a side, further deepening polarization. However, there is still some hope for reducing polarization and rebuilding the middle ground, Maimone said.
“Reducing the moralized language around some political debates and not demonizing political opponents so they would seem less threatening could help make political cooperation feel more socially acceptable,” Maimone said. “Over time, this may help create the conditions for real dialogue across political parties where nuance and compromise are valued rather than punished, potentially reducing polarization.”
Article: “Whoever Is Not With Me Is Against Me: The ‘Moderate as Out-Group’ Effect,” Giulia Maimone, PhD, University of Florida, and Craig R. M. McKenzie, PhD, University of California, San Diego. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, published online July 27, 2026. (MORE - no ads)