Correcting misperceptions of partisan opponents is not effective at treating democratic ills

Many warn that the United States is on the brink of democratic collapse, because partisan animosity, support for partisan violence, and support for undemocratic practices are on the rise. Quelling some fears, scholars have offered interventions that use messages to correct misperceptions about citizens' partisan opponents (the "out-party"). In this article, we provide evidence that the effects of these interventions are not as robust or consistent as hoped. First, we use panel data ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>9,810</mml:mn></mml:math> ) to show that perceptions of the out-party are highly variable. This suggests that these perceptions are weakly held and thus unlikely to be a significant cause of hostile attitudes. The oscillation of perceptions over time also suggests that, for many, any effect of corrections would likely be overwhelmed in just 1 month. Second, in a meta-analysis of 67 statistical tests from 12 studies in eight papers, we document that current evidence on the efficacy of corrections is weak. Third and finally, in pre-registered experiments ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2,846</mml:mn></mml:math> ), we find that changing Americans' perceptions of the out-party's demographics, policy attitudes, and support for undemocratic practices has no consistent effect on partisan animosity, support for partisan violence, or support for undemocratic practices. These observations suggest that correcting misperceptions of the out-party is not a panacea for our democratic ills.