Assistant Professor John Blanchar teaches in the Department of Psychology within UMD's College of Education and Human Service Professions. His research focuses on political psychology and often touches on specific events and news. He studies why people are more liberal or conservative; political polarization and intolerance; voting behavior; the moralization of politics; and the culture wars, more broadly.
Blanchar will be giving a talk on September 27 from 1-2 p.m. titled, “Revisiting Legitimacy Beliefs about the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Two Years Later: Low Institutional Trust and the Subversion of Democratic Elections." The talk will happen in the UMD Library Rotunda and virtually.
Many people avoid conversations about politics because they can lead to conflict. In avoiding political discussions how are we contributing to polarization?
That’s part of the issue, but it’s more complex. Avoiding political conversations is both a symptom and a cause of polarization. We often expect these discussions to be unpleasant, though evidence suggests we overestimate the discomfort. As a result, we tend to engage only with like-minded individuals, which leads to selective exposure to ideas and reinforces polarization.
The broader climate of political intolerance also encourages people to align with those who share their values, making cross-cutting conversations less likely. Beyond “echo chambers,” our preference for like-minded affiliations further deepens polarization, as political ideology increasingly overlaps with class, religion, race, and geography—identities where political diversity used to be more common. In short, we’re seeing a growing divide where two large, politically homogenous groups dominate the landscape.
Do you have suggestions or strategies for people on how to communicate across political lines, particularly with friends and family members?
When discussing politics with friends and family, it's important to remember that changing someone’s mind is a process, not a one-time event. Building trust and understanding over time is crucial, particularly when conversations could trigger defensive reactions. I encourage adopting a mindset of curiosity and openness, extending the principle of charity, and connecting on our shared humanity.
We can view these discussions as opportunities to learn about others' beliefs and the reasons behind them. It’s also useful to mutually identify what information or evidence could potentially change each other's viewpoint. This approach fosters good faith humility, acknowledging that you are also open to changing your views. Starting conversations by clearly stating the criteria for changing opinions helps focus the dialogue on evidence and prevents it from devolving into a moving target.
This is likely to be a heated election season. What additional recommendations do you have for maintaining civility around the elections and the inauguration season?
We often assume the worst possible motives for someone with opposing political views, but that’s rarely accurate. People tend to anchor on their own reasons and wrongly believe those on the other side are acting against their own values. In reality, individuals are usually guided by different values or priorities, not bad intentions.
My recommendation is to avoid jumping to conclusions about someone's motivations and instead practice the “steel man” approach—attempt to articulate their position in the strongest possible terms, as they would express it. Ask for clarification if needed, and if you engage in this way sincerely, they are more likely to reciprocate.
You conducted a two-year longitudinal study related to the perceived legitimacy of the 2020 POTUS election. Do you have a key finding from this research to share with the public?
Yes, I’ve been tracking Americans’ beliefs about the 2020 election for more than two years, including through the 2022 midterms. Unfortunately, the findings are discouraging. Most Republicans remain skeptical or outright reject Joe Biden as the legitimate president, and there has been virtually no change in this perception.
Additionally, a large gap has emerged between Democrats' and Republicans' trust in U.S. elections, which persisted into the 2022 midterms. Republicans were more likely to view elections as legitimate when their candidates won in the House, Senate, or state governorships. However, Republicans with low trust viewed Democratic victories as illegitimate, in contrast to Republicans with higher trust.
A similar, though weaker, pattern emerged among Democrats with low trust, who were more skeptical of Republican victories. These trends raise concerns about the potential for further challenges to election legitimacy in 2024.
Do you have research findings that have implications for the long term—for what happens after the election?
Although most of the focus is on the presidential election, my research team and I are also investigating how people respond to state-level abortion ballot measures this November.
After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision in 2022, the regulation of abortion shifted to state legislatures. Some states have passed more restrictive laws, while others are expanding legal protections. For example, if certain ballot measures pass, states like Florida and Missouri could significantly expand abortion access, moving from near-total bans. This means where people live will increasingly determine their access to legal abortion and reproductive healthcare.
Data I collected in 2022 suggest that such policy changes may lead to migration, as individuals relocate to states that better align with their politics and moral convictions. If this happens, it could intensify political polarization, as people increasingly sort themselves into ideologically homogeneous regions. This is an ongoing project I’ve been working on with Harper Miller, an undergraduate student who’s played a key role in this study as part of the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP).