Asymmetric Moral Metaperceptions: Consequences for Political Polarization and Paths to Correction

Political polarization is fueled not only by what people believe but also by what they think others believe about them. Across four studies, we investigate moral metaperceptions—beliefs about how ideological outgroups evaluate one's moral values—as a novel contributor to intergroup division. In Study 1, we analyze a large corpus of abortion-related tweets and find that pro-life users emphasize binding values when describing their own stance but shift toward individualizing values when discussing pro-choice positions, whereas pro-choice users consistently rely on individualizing values. These framing differences show how moral values structure group self-presentation versus outgroup characterization, motivating our direct tests of metaperceptions in Studies 2–4. In Studies 2 and 3, preregistered experimental studies compare perceptions and metaperceptions of moral values across ideological stances. Results reveal asymmetric inaccuracies: liberals underestimate how much conservatives think liberals uphold binding values, while conservatives overestimate how much liberals think conservatives uphold individualizing values. These metaperceptual distortions predict intergroup trust and perceived threat. In Study 4, participants were randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions. When shown that the outgroup viewed their moral adherence more positively than expected, both liberals and conservatives reported higher trust and lower perceived threat, with effects strongest among individuals higher in empathy. These findings identify moral metaperceptions as a key psychological mechanism that sustains polarization and highlight their potential as a target for interventions aimed at fostering constructive cross-ideological engagement.