Bridging the Political Divide: Meta-Humanization and Moral Emotions Shape Partisan Reconciliation.

In an era of deepening political polarization, understanding how partisans believe they are perceived by ideological opponents is critical for explaining both hostility and conciliation. Across five studies (N = 1,541) conducted in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, we examine how meta-humanization, perceiving that one's political ingroup is seen as fully human by the outgroup, shapes moral emotional responses and downstream intergroup attitudes. Specifically, we test anger, disgust, and empathy as parallel mediators linking meta-humanization to affective polarization, negotiation, teamwork, and willingness for out-party contact, while examining perceived threat to social cohesion as a moderator. Across studies, meta-humanization reliably predicts more conciliatory intergroup attitudes, with disgust emerging as the primary affective pathway. Our findings advance theory on meta-perceptions by demonstrating that meta-humanization shapes political attitudes through moral emotion regulation, and by identifying threat to social cohesion as a condition that, under moderate levels, drives these processes. Implications for understanding and mitigating identity-based conflicts in polarized political climates are discussed.