Element contents
Series: Elements in Political Psychology
Empathy and Political Reasoning
How Empathy Promotes Reflection and Strengthens Democracy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 March 2025
Summary
How do individuals make up their mind about politics? This question has sparked a vigorous debate in the study of political behavior for the last few decades. Some scholars contend that citizens can and should engage in political reflection, while others highlight biases in human political reasoning that make reflection impossible. This Element is about the conditions under which citizens can be motivated to transcend their egocentric biases and engage in reflection. Rather than asking whether citizens are capable of reflection, it shifts focus to a more productive question: how to motivate reflection. Firstly, it argues that (situational) empathy for the other side can inspire citizens to think reflectively about politics. Secondly, the Element proposes that deliberative institutions have the potential to evoke empathy for the other side in individuals. Thirdly, it draws on experimental and qualitative data from Belgium, Chile, Ireland, and the UK to test the theoretical expectations.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Political PsychologyOnline ISBN: 9781009643573Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 13 March 2025
References
Achen, C., & Bartels, L. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. (1989). Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, B. N., Lelkes, Y., & Malka, A. (2020). Understanding partisan cue receptivity: Tests of predictions from the bounded rationality and expressive utility perspectives. The Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1061–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidadanure, J. U. (2019). The political theory of universal basic income. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, L. W. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (2017). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. New York City, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Bottoni, G. (2023). CROss-National Online Survey 2 (CRONOS-2) panel data and documentation user guide. London: ESS ERIC.Google Scholar
Brader, T., & Marcus, G. E. (2013). Emotion and political psychology. In Huddy, L., Sears, D. O., & Levy, J. S. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology, Second Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press (165–204).Google Scholar
Brader, T., & Tucker, J. A. (2018). Unreflective partisans? Policy information and evaluation in the development of partisanship. Political Psychology, 39, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brophy, N., & Mullinix, K. J. (2024). Partisan motivated empathy and policy attitudes. Political Behavior, 46(3), 1701–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundidge, J., Reid, S. A., Choi, S., & Muddiman, A. (2014). The “deliberative digital divide”: Opinion leadership and integrative complexity in the US political blogosphere. Political Psychology, 35(6), 741–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 519–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, C. D., Hutcherson, C. A., Ferguson, A. M., et al. (2019). Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 148(6), 962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carswell, S. (2017). Citizens’ assembly: Reaction from both sides of abortion debate, 23 April, www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/citizens-assembly-reaction-from-both-sides-of-abortion-debate-1.3058645.Google Scholar
Cheng, Y., Chen, C., & Decety, J. (2017). How situational context impacts empathic responses and brain activation patterns. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chwalisz, C. (2021). Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No.12, December 14, www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/eight-ways-to-institutionalise-deliberative-democracy.htm.Google Scholar
Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, S., Kirkland, J. H., & Simas, E. N. (2019). How dispositional empathy influences political ambition. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 1043–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, C. (2018). Hearing the other side? Debiasing political opinions in the case of the Scottish independence referendum. Political Studies, 66(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connors, E. C., Pietryka, M. T., & Ryan, J. B. (2022). Examining motivations in interpersonal communication experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press (206–261).Google Scholar
Courant, D. (2021). The promises and disappointments of the French citizens’ convention for climate. Deliberative Democracy Digest, June 9. www.publicdeliberation.net/the-promises-and-disappointments-of-the-french-citizens-convention-for-climate/.Google Scholar
Crawford, N. C. (2014). Institutionalizing passion in world politics: Fear and empathy. International Theory, 6(3), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N. (2019). Democracy in a time of misery: From spectacular tragedies to deliberative action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N., & Farrell, D. (2021). Deliberative mini-publics: Core design features. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Waal, F. B. (2012). Empathy in primates and other mammals. In Decety, J. (ed.), Empathy: From bench to bedside. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (87–106).Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2014). Pathologies of studying public opinion, political communication, and democratic responsiveness. Political Communication, 31(3), 467–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elstub, S. (2014). Deliberative pragmatic equilibrium review: A framework for comparing institutional devices and their enactment of deliberative democracy in the UK. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 386–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Perspective taking: Misstepping into others shoes. In Markman, K. D., Klein, W. M. P., Suhr, J. A. (eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation. Hove: Psychology Press (297–311).Google Scholar
Erle, T. M., & Topolinski, S. (2017). The grounded nature of psychological perspective-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESS (European Social Survey). (2016). ESS Round 8: European Social Survey Round 8 Data. Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway.Google Scholar
Esterling, K. M., Neblo, M. A., & Lazer, D. M. (2011). Means, motive, and opportunity in becoming informed about politics: A deliberative field experiment with members of Congress and their constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, D. M., Suiter, J., Cunningham, K., & Harris, C. (2023). When mini-publics and maxi-publics coincide: Ireland’s national debate on abortion. Representation, 59(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, E. (2016). Empathy: “The good, the bad and the ugly”. In Wood, A. M. & Johnson, J. (eds.), The Wiley handbook of positive clinical psychology. Wiley-Blackwell (103–123).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L., & Bradburn, N. (2021). Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on “America in one room.” American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fournier, P., Turgeon, M., Blais, A., et al. (2011). Deliberation from within: Changing one’s mind during an interview. Political Psychology, 32(5), 885–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2003). Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11, 338, 345.Google Scholar
Gadarian, S. K., & Albertson, B. (2014). Anxiety, immigration, and the search for information. Political Psychology, 35(2), 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J. (2018). The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J., & Wright, E. O. (eds.) (2019). Legislature by lot: Transformative designs for deliberative governance. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Germann, M., Marien, S., & Muradova, L. (2024). Scaling up? Unpacking the effect of deliberative mini-publics on legitimacy perceptions. Political Studies, 72(2), 677–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendyk, E., & Krupnikov, Y. (2021). What motivates reasoning? A theory of goal‐dependent political evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 180–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Political Behavior, 37, 995–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2017). Empathy in a citizen deliberation experiment. Scandinavian Political Studies, 40(4), 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1497–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ickes, W. (2003). Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Jacquet, V. (2017). Explaining non‐participation in deliberative mini‐publics. European Journal of Political Research, 56(3), 640–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, G., Cullen, J., Bryant, J., et al. (2019). The empathetic museum: A new institutional identity. Curator: The Museum Journal, 62(4), 505–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. F., Morrell, M. E., & Black, L. W. (2019). Emotions and deliberation in the citizens’ initiative review. Social Science Quarterly, 100(6), 2168–2187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2023). Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective‐getting. American Journal of Political Science, 67(1), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, C. D. (2006). Political campaigns and open-minded thinking. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 931–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Article 43.Google Scholar
Klar, S. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, S. R. (2008). Civil passions: Moral sentiment and democratic deliberation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacelle-Webster, A. (2024). “What should we hope for? Democratic hope and the collective, uncertain, and future-oriented dimensions of democratic politics.” A conference paper presented at Yale ISPS conference “Deliberative Democracy with a passion: Identities, emotions, and the formation of political judgement,” May 16, 2024.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. (2020). Open democracy: Reinventing popular rule for the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. (2024). “Truth and love in politics.” A conference paper presented at Yale ISPS conference “Deliberative Democracy with a passion: Identities, emotions, and the formation of political judgement,” May 16, 2024.Google Scholar
Lindell, M., Bächtiger, A., Grönlund, K., et al. (2017). What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration. European Journal of Political Research, 56(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macq, H., & Jacquet, V. (2023). Institutionalising participatory and deliberative procedures: The origins of the first permanent citizens’ assembly. European Journal of Political Research, 62(1), 156–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. E. (2010). Sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marlborough, A. (2016). Irish constitutional debate on abortion and the resort to Citizens’ Assemblies 23 August, https://constitutionnet.org/news/irish-constitutional-debate-abortion-and-resort-citizens-assemblies.Google Scholar
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, J. (2023). Feeling their pain: Why voters want leaders who care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, 6(1), 151–193.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33(2), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, M. E. (2010). Empathy and democracy: Feeling, thinking, and deliberation. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Civic duty and political preference formation. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradova, L. (2020). Seeing the other side? Perspective-taking and reflective political judgements in interpersonal deliberation. Political Studies, 69(3), 644–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradova, L., & Arceneaux, K. (2022a). Political Belief Formation: Individual Differences and Situational Factors. In Musolino, J., Sommer, J., and Hemmer, P., the Cognitive Science of Belief: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (279–297).Google Scholar
Muradova, L., & Arceneaux, K. (2022b). Reflective political reasoning: Political disagreement and empathy. European Journal of Political Research, 61(3), 740–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradova, L., & Suiter, J. (2022). Public compliance with difficult political decisions in times of a pandemic: Does citizen deliberation help? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(3), edac026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradova, L., Walker, H., & Colli, F. (2020). Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: Evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly. Climate Policy, 20(10), 1322–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradova, L., Michalaki, K., & Tsakiris, M. (2024). Felling our way through misperceptions on climate change. Working paper.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, M. A. (2020). Impassioned democracy: The roles of emotion in deliberative theory. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 923–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Shaughnessy, A. C. (2022). Triumph and concession? The moral and emotional construction of Ireland’s campaign for abortion rights. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 29(2), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, R. J., & Wedeking, J. P. (2011). Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of U.S. supreme court opinions. Law & Society Review, 45(4), 1027–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penigaud, T. (2024). “Causes and reasons in voting behaviors.” A conference paper presented at Yale ISPS conference “Deliberative democracy with a passion: Identities, emotions, and the formation of political judgement,” May 16, 2024.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R., Morrell, M. E., Brinker, D., Reedy, J., & Richards, R. C. Jr. (2022). Psychological phenomena in democratic deliberation. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(2), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, S. W. (2007). Rethinking democratic deliberation: The limits and potential of citizen participation. Polity, 39(3), 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. (2021). Why citizen participation succeeds or fails: A comparative analysis of participatory budgeting. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Saam, N. J. (2018). Recognizing the emotion work in deliberation: Why emotions do not make deliberative democracy more democratic. Political Psychology, 39(4), 755–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, B., Sim, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setälä, M. (2017). Connecting deliberative mini‐publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 846–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, E. N., Clifford, S., & Kirkland, J. H. (2020). How empathic concern fuels political polarization. American Political Science Review, 114(1), 258–269.Google Scholar
Simonovits, G., Kezdi, G., & Kardos, P. (2018). Seeing the world through the other’s eye: An online intervention reducing ethnic prejudice. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirin, C. V., Villalobos, J. D., & Valentino, N. A. (2016). Group empathy theory: The effect of group empathy on US intergroup attitudes and behavior in the context of immigration threats. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 893–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirin, C. V., Valentino, N. A., & Villalobos, J. D. (2021). Seeing us in them: Social divisions and the politics of group empathy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stüber, K. (2019). Measuring empathy. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empathy/measuring.html). Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1669–1702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suiter, J., Muradova, L., Gastil, J., & Farrell, D. M. (2020). Scaling up deliberation: Testing the potential of mini‐publics to enhance the deliberative capacity of citizens. Swiss Political Science Review, 26(3), 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Bernzweig, J., & Gallant, J. L. (1985). Supreme Court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective‐taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 374–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Perspective taking combats the denial of intergroup discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 738–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trian, N. (2021). Macron’s “direct democracy” to be tested as citizens’ panel on climate wraps up, March 01, www.france24.com/en/france/20210301-macron-s-direct-democracy-to-be-tested-as-citizens-panel-on-climate-wraps-up.Google Scholar
Tuller, H. M., Bryan, C. J., Heyman, G. D., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2015). Seeing the other side: Perspective taking and the moderation of extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkenburg, E., & Goovaerts, I. (2024). Food for thought: A longitudinal investigation of reflection-promoting speech in televised election debates (1985–2019). Political Studies, 72(1), 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugarriza, J. E., & Nussio, E. (2017). The effect of perspective‐giving on postconflict reconciliation. An experimental approach. Political Psychology, 38(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valli, C., & Nai, A. (2023). Dispositioned to resist? The Big Five and resistance to dissonant political views. Personality and Individual Differences, 207, 112152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against elections: The case for democracy. London: The Bodley Head.Google Scholar
Webster, S. W., & Albertson, B. (2022). Emotion and politics: Noncognitive psychological biases in public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinmann, C. (2018). Measuring political thinking: Development and validation of a scale for “deliberation within.” Political Psychology, 39(2), 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2010). Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities. Political Psychology, 31(3), 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyss, D., Beste, S., & Bächtiger, A. (2015). A decline in the quality of debate? The evolution of cognitive complexity in Swiss parliamentary debates on immigration (1968–2014). Swiss Political Science Review, 21(4), 636–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaki, J. (2018). Empathy is a moral force. In Gray, K., & Graham, J. (eds.), Atlas of moral psychology. New York City, NY: The Guilford Press (49–58).Google Scholar