| Summary: | "Stories suggesting that the United States and many other countries throughout the world have become more "polarized" are ubiquitous in newscasts, newspapers, magazines, and other forms of media (e.g., French, 11/4/20; PBS, 4/9/21; Washington Post, 1/20/21). Although some scholars have argued that assertions of increasing political polarization are exaggerated (e.g., Fiorina, Abrams, & Pope, 2011), a wealth of empirical research buffers the claims of these reports. There have been rises in the polarization of people's political views as well as the acrimonious attitudes they hold toward others who espouse views that clash with their own (e.g., Abramowitz, 2010; Iyengar & DeBell, this volume; Iyengar et al., 2019). The term "political polarization" commonly evokes negative sentiment. However, it is important to note upfront that political polarization is not completely undesirable. Groups that polarize toward a consensus position are more likely to actually enact policies and plans endorsed by the group (Kameda & Tindale, 2006). Moreover, the existence of political attitude differences between groups can contribute to a vibrant democratic life in which alternative solutions to social problems are fully explored (Mutz, 2006). Thus, under some conditions, polarization can promote beneficial forms of social and political action. Unfortunately, though, polarization can also produce dysfunctional outcomes when it pushes groups too far apart and groups are isolated from critical sources of information. Under such conditions, polarization can produce suboptimal decisions within groups, and reduce the likelihood that groups with competing interests resolve their differences and implement compromises (Janis, 1982; Paluck, 2010). Political polarization can also decrease substantive policy reasoning, increase violence within and between states, amplify economic inequality, and impede the enactment of legislation (Ottati & Wilson, 2018). Pernicious forms of polarization are presumably exacerbated by dogmatic (or closed-minded) thinking that fails to openly consider the viability of opposing viewpoints, as well as low levels of intellectual humility in which people rarely consider the possibility that their own beliefs and opinions might be fallible. A primary purpose of this volume is to increase the scientific comprehension of open-mindedness and dogmatism. An understanding of open-mindedness and dogmatism can illuminate the nature and causes of political polarization, and provide clues regarding how one might attempt to reduce damaging aspects of polarization. Negative outcomes of polarization constitute one of the most salient challenges to be addressed in the 21st century. The promise of open-mindedness as a means to achieve greater social harmony and reduce problematic forms of polarization is timely. Indeed, it is difficult to uncover an arena of contemporary life that does not emphasize the value of open-mindedness. Open-mindedness is a prominent theme in commencement addresses at universities, and constitutes a core value of many organizations (e.g., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, National Council for Social Studies, Foundation for Critical Thinking, International Baccalaureate). Endorsement of open-mindedness is also evident in remarks from the 46th U.S. President Joseph Biden, Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, and many other prominent political and religious leaders"--
|
|---|