Extreme ingroup and outgroup perspectives counter-intuitively impact intergroup polarisation at the level of neural oscillations
No Thumbnail Available
Access rights
openAccess
CC BY
CC BY
publishedVersion
URL
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
This publication is imported from Aalto University research portal.
View publication in the Research portal (opens in new window)
View/Open full text file from the Research portal (opens in new window)
Other link related to publication (opens in new window)
View publication in the Research portal (opens in new window)
View/Open full text file from the Research portal (opens in new window)
Other link related to publication (opens in new window)
Authors
Date
2025-03
Major/Subject
Mcode
Degree programme
Language
en
Pages
13
Series
Cortex, Volume 184, pp. 250-262
Abstract
A powerful example of affective polarisation occurred between vaccine-supporters and -opposers when vaccinations were implemented to counter the recent global pandemic. In this social neuroscience study, we scanned 121 vaccine-supporters using magnetoencephalography to evaluate three levels of polarisation: explicit, implicit, and neural — and then to test whether exposing people to extreme ingroup perspectives (following the paradoxical thinking principles) or extreme outgroup perspectives can modulate those levels of affective polarisation between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. We show that a neural proxy for intergroup polarisation, expressed as late prefrontal beta rhythm suppression, can detect subtle changes in affective polarisation. More specifically, we find that exposing vaccine-supporters to extreme ingroup (i.e., pro-vaccination) viewpoints leads to a decrease in this neural proxy of affective polarisation. Conversely, exposure to extreme outgroup (i.e., anti-vaccination) narratives increases polarisation, which in turn predicts a decrease in positive affect towards vaccine opposers almost one year later. Altogether, the results show that although it may seem intuitive to expose people to counter-arguments (i.e., extreme outgroup perspectives) to change their opinions, such an approach can backlash and increase polarisation instead. However, using subtler methods such as the paradoxical thinking intervention (i.e., extreme ingroup perspectives) for attitude change can have the desired effects and reduce intergroup polarisation.Description
Keywords
Social neuroscience, Covid-19 vaccination, Magnetoencephalography, Affective polarisation, paradoxical thinking, IAT, Intergroup interventions
Other note
Citation
Kluge, A & Levy, J 2025, ' Extreme ingroup and outgroup perspectives counter-intuitively impact intergroup polarisation at the level of neural oscillations ', Cortex, vol. 184, pp. 250-262 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2024.12.020