Endorsing both sides, pleasing neither: Ambivalent individuals face unexpected social costs in political conflicts

Abstract

Reducing political polarization requires finding common ground among people with diverse opinions. The current research shows that people generally expect that expressing ambivalence about political issues—endorsing some considerations on both sides, for instance—can help them establish positive relations with others holding a wide variety of political views. However, across several policy topics—COVID-19 mask mandates, immigration, and the death penalty—we found that targets expressing a given position with more (vs. less) ambivalence were not liked more, whether perceivers agreed or disagreed with their overall position. In fact, when perceivers agreed with targets' overall positions, they judged those with more (vs. less) ambivalent attitudes as less likeable, warm, and competent. Although views of ambivalent targets varied across perceivers, the negative effect when targets and perceivers shared overall positions was larger and more consistent than any positive effects among opposing perceivers. This exposes a mismatch between expectation and social reality: Whereas expressing ambivalence might make intuitive sense toward bridging political divides, we found it was ironically more likely to reduce liking among allies while maintaining disliking among adversaries. These findings speak to the interpersonal dynamics of political polarization, highlighting a potential social disincentive against publicly taking nuanced positions on political issues.