You don't need fake news to change the way people think. New research shows that the mere sense of an "us vs. them" conflict is enough to make them perceive facts and reality differently.
New research by Nicola Gennaioli, Frederik Schwerter and Guido Tabellini, conducted under the auspices of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) think tank, demonstrates that the mechanisms of polarization run far deeper than social media and the messaging of political parties. It turns out that social conflict alone, even without supplying any new facts or "news," is enough to significantly deepen social divisions, both in the realm of verifiable facts and in normative beliefs.
The study was conducted as an online experiment on a representative sample of nearly 13,000 Americans. Participants were randomly assigned to groups in which the experiment's organizers subtly heightened the sense of social conflict, whether economic (e.g. the rich vs. the poor) or cultural (e.g. "cosmopolitan elites" vs. "ordinary Americans"). The key point was that no new information was provided, no data, no substantive arguments. Nor were there any specific political figures or events. The only stimulus was emphasizing the "us vs. them" divide through neutral but suggestive phrasing and the experimental context.
The results are striking, because such an imagined political conflict intensified by 8 to 35 percent. The effect concerned not only normative views (what is "right"), but also beliefs about facts (what is "true"). Polarization was therefore not merely an expression of emotional tribalism, but a real change in the perception of reality. The authors explain this through a mechanism of stereotyping. People automatically and unreflectively reinforce stereotypes about "their own" and the "other" group, which in turn amplifies existing—though previously small—differences in views. In other words, propaganda does not need to lie or supply "alternative facts"—it is enough for it to make the "us vs. them" divide the point of reference, and the brain does the rest of the work itself, leading to a new, polarized reality.
These findings explain how political propaganda works and why certain populist or authoritarian campaigns are so effective, even when their messages are substantively thin. It is not about information, but about activating group identity and antagonism. In the American context, the study sheds light on a dynamic in which the rhetoric of "the elite vs. the people" or "globalists vs. patriots" works independently of any concrete policy proposals.
The authors of this study stress that understanding this mechanism is crucial for designing effective responses to this social phenomenon. It is not enough to fight disinformation; one must also limit and counteract intergroup conflicts. Otherwise, democracies risk sliding onto a path where politics becomes not so much a competition of ideas as a war of identities, in which facts lose their significance.
At the same time, the "us vs. them" study recalls a fundamental premise of social psychology, in which the human being is a social creature, and their beliefs are largely a product of group context. Propaganda therefore does not have to be intellectually sophisticated. It is enough for it to activate the oldest of group instincts—the one that defines "our own" and the "others" against whom one must defend oneself.
Does polarization always require disinformation? No. Research shows that the mere sense of conflict between groups is enough to change the way reality is perceived.
How does the "us vs. them" mechanism work? It activates group identity and reinforces stereotypes, which leads people to start interpreting the same facts differently.
Is it only opinions that change, or facts as well? Both views and beliefs about facts change—people can "see" reality differently.
How strong is this effect? In the study, the increase in polarization ranged from 8 to 35%, despite the absence of any new information or arguments.
Can it be counteracted? Yes, but fighting disinformation is not enough—the key is to reduce conflicts and tensions between social groups.
