“Us versus them” – new research shows how politicians can polarise voters by simply naming an “enemy” group

• The study from Frankfurt School of Finance & Management shows that reflecting on a perceived outgroup can increase disagreement on political issues by 8 to 35 percent.
• The study is based on a survey among 13,000 people in the US.
• The findings suggest that “us versus them” framing can shift beliefs even without new facts, policy arguments or misinformation.

Simply mentioning an “enemy” outgroup, without any other information, is enough to increase disagreement with them, finds new research from Frankfurt School of Finance & Management.

In an experiment with a large representative US sample of nearly 13,000 respondents Professor Frederik Schwerter from Frankfurt School, alongside Professor Nicola Gennaioli and Professor Guido Tabellini from Bocconi University and CEPR, show that increasing the salience of a social conflict — economic or cultural — without providing any news at all boosts disagreement on a range of political issues by 8 to 35 percent. The researchers simply changed the order of the survey questions, asking some respondents to reflect on a social "enemy" — say, billionaires who evade taxes, or supporters of White Pride — before they state their beliefs on income inequality, immigration, redistribution, or abortion. The other survey participants were asked the questions in reverse; to state their beliefs first, then reflect on an “enemy” group.

The researchers found that simply mentioning an “enemy” group first increases participants’ disagreement on a range of political issues by 8 to 35 percent. For example, when an economic issue is primed, economic progressives become measurably more progressive and conservatives become more conservative, not only on economic issues but also on cultural ones.

The researchers explain that when a conflict between such groups is made salient, people begin to see the world through the lens of their ingroup. Their beliefs shift toward ingroup stereotypes: what distinguishes the ingroup from the outgroup, exaggerated relative to reality.

“Political leaders routinely activate group conflicts through rhetoric alone. When Donald Trump lists ‚communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs‘ as threats to America, he is not presenting new facts or policy proposals. Instead, the audience is invited to contemplate who threatens them,” says Professor Frederik Schwerter. “The implication is striking: to polarise a society, you don’t need misinformation — you just need to decide which conflict to put in the spotlight.”

Understanding that framing "us versus them" can shift beliefs on verifiable facts, in the absence of any facts or news, is essential for designing effective responses. Combatting polarisation should go beyond addressing misinformation and question how societies frame their disagreements.