Abstract
Recently, researchers and reporters have made a wide range of claims about the
distribution, nature, and societal impact of political polarization. Here I offer reasons to
believe that, even when they are correct and prima facie merely descriptive, many of
these claims have the highly negative side effect of increasing political polarization. This
is because of the interplay of two factors that have so far been neglected in the work on
political polarization, namely that (1) people have a tendency to conform to descriptive
norms (i.e., norms capturing (perceptions of) what others commonly do, think, or feel),
and (2) claims about political polarization often convey such norms. Many of these claims
thus incline people to behave, cognize, and be affectively disposed in ways that
contribute to social division. But there is a silver lining. People’s tendency to conform to
descriptive norms also provides the basis for developing new, experimentally testable
strategies for counteracting political polarization. I outline three.