Perception Gaps
Definition
Perception gaps is the empirical research program — most associated with the international nonprofit More in Common, building on earlier work by Daniel Yankelovich and the Hidden Tribes / Bridging Divides reports — that documents the systematic overestimation of polarisation and extremism in democratic publics. More in Common’s flagship Hidden Tribes of America report (2017) and parallel international studies identify an “exhausted majority” of voters who feel politically homeless and a “perception gap” where partisans systematically overestimate the other side’s extremity, in the US, UK, France, Germany, Poland, and Italy. [source: more-in-common]
The central empirical claim is that the small, highly polarised minority at the loudest end of the debate is mistaken by the median voter (and by the median journalist) for the median voter, which distorts both campaign strategy and the public’s sense of what is politically possible.
Practitioners use the research to push campaigns away from chasing the polarised base and toward designing messages that move the median, which is the strategic implication the More in Common work is most associated with in the campaign literature.
Full page: [[perception-gaps]].
FAQ
What are perception gaps?
Perception gaps is the empirical research program — most associated with the international nonprofit More in Common, building on earlier work by Daniel Yankelovich and the Hidden Tribes / Bridging Divides reports — that documents the systematic overestimation of polarisation and extremism in democratic publics [source: more-in-common]. More in Common’s flagship Hidden Tribes of America report (2017) and parallel international studies identify an “exhausted majority” of voters who feel politically homeless and a “perception gap” where partisans systematically overestimate the other side’s extremity.
What is the central empirical claim?
The central empirical claim is that the small, highly polarised minority at the loudest end of the debate is mistaken by the median voter (and by the median journalist) for the median voter, which distorts both campaign strategy and the public’s sense of what is politically possible [source: more-in-common]. The studies cover the US, UK, France, Germany, Poland, and Italy.
How do practitioners use the perception-gaps research?
Practitioners use the research to push campaigns away from chasing the polarised base and toward designing messages that move the median, which is the strategic implication the More in Common work is most associated with in the campaign literature [source: more-in-common]. The implication is that the campaign’s target-voter model should be audited against actual survey data before being used to choose a message register.