Reducing political polarization requires finding common ground among people with diverse opinions. The current research shows that people generally 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 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.

中文翻译：

---

支持双方，但双方都不高兴：矛盾的个人在政治冲突中面临意想不到的社会成本


减少政治两极分化需要在不同意见的人们之间找到共同点。目前的研究表明，人们普遍表达对政治问题的矛盾心理——例如支持双方的某些考虑——可以帮助他们与持有多种政治观点的其他人建立积极的关系。然而，在多个政策主题（COVID-19 口罩强制令、移民和死刑）中，我们发现，无论感知者同意还是不同意他们的总体立场，以更多（相对更少）矛盾心态表达既定立场的目标并不更受欢迎。 。事实上，当感知者同意目标的总体立场时，他们会认为那些态度较为矛盾（相对较少）的人是讨人喜欢的、热情的和有能力的。尽管不同感知者对矛盾目标的看法各不相同，但当目标和感知者共享总体立场时的负面影响比对立感知者之间的任何积极影响更大且更一致。这暴露了期望与社会现实之间的不匹配：虽然表达矛盾心理可能对弥合政治分歧具有直观意义，但具有讽刺意味的是，我们发现它更有可能减少盟友之间的好感，同时维持对手之间的厌恶。这些发现说明了政治两极分化的人际动态，凸显了社会对在政治问题上公开采取微妙立场的潜在抑制因素。