Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Build Community Norms and Reduce Intergroup Anxiety

Opinion

Build Community Norms and Reduce Intergroup Anxiety
white jigsaw puzzle pieces on brown marble table
Photo by Jonny Gios on Unsplash

More in Common recently released “ The Connection Opportunity,” an expansive two-year study involving over 6,000 Americans nationwide about connections across various divides. It has so much valuable content. As a practitioner focused on reducing problems around political differences, I want to focus on what I found to be the most important findings, followed by examples of efforts to achieve these goals.

One of the five key insights resonates most with me: “Two factors–community norms and intergroup anxiety–stand out as the strongest predictors of interest in connecting across difference.” This helps focus attention on the most important steps to take, to build community norms related to connecting, and to reduce factors leading to an overblown sense of intergroup anxiety.


To provide more context, More in Common analyzed two dozen different factors theorized to impact interest in connecting across difference. These factors covered various aspects in the categories of demographics, behavior and environment, traits and dispositions, and social and relational topics. Some factors increased interest in connecting across different, while others diminished it.

From this list of two dozen factors, two were most strongly associated with interest in connecting across differences in terms of politics (as well as when aggregating the four lines of difference studied—racial/ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, and politics). The most important factor that increased interest in this kind of connection was “perceived community norms.” On the other hand, “intergroup anxiety” was the most important factor that decreased interest in connection across difference, and intergroup anxiety was particularly important for politics.

To its credit, More in Common turned these descriptive findings into action. Two of its seven recommendations directly relate to these findings:

  • “Increase the perception that connecting across difference is the 'community norm.”’
  • “Reduce intergroup anxiety.”

More in Common explained these recommendations in ways that closely align with the goals of my organization, More Like US.

Numerous other organizations are also trying to achieve these goals in their own ways, and I try to identify many of them here. More in Common also identified numerous organizations conducting aligned activities in the “Resources for Stakeholders” section of The Connection Opportunity. I have specifically chosen to highlight additional organizations and efforts here.

Let’s start with the recommendation to “increase the perception that connecting across difference is the “community norm.”’ More in Common identified factors impacting community norms including “the media, one’s immediate social and physical environments, and institutional policy.” More in Common went on to praise “efforts to uplift stories of connection, model social connection, and support policies that signal communities are welcoming.”

Most directly in terms of building the “community norm,” we at More Like US are starting to work on college campuses to build community norms around engaging across the political spectrum, focusing on the messaging and information students see about each other about the acceptability of discussing political topics. We are ultimately trying to reach the majority of students on a given campus. Most directly in terms of building the “community norm,” we at More Like US are working with the National Social Norms Center at Michigan State, which has decades of experience building community norms on college campuses, mostly to change health-related behaviors. It now also seeks to change social norms related to politics and political conversations.

Groups like BridgeUSA have started to build new community norms on college campuses, mostly through dialogue. Many college campuses have their own efforts in this space. Other organizations, such as Braver Angels (specifically its >100 alliances), and The Harwood Institute, target a wider age range and aim to build new community norms in specific communities or parts of communities.

We also offer resources for media, both news and entertainment. More Like US’s Similarity Hub, built with AllSides, aggregates hundreds of survey datapoints showing common ground across the political spectrum, useful for journalists who can show that perspectives can overlap even on the most hot-button topics. Trusting News is an organization working to reduce the contribution of news to political tensions.

More Like US’s CAST (Complex, Admirable, Similar, Together) guidance for those in the Arts is designed to identify ways to portray those across the political spectrum in a better and more accurate light. The “Together” aspect aims to uplift and model stories of connection that More in Common identified as important in building community norms. Organizations such as Bridge Entertainment Labs have this aim for TV and film, and the Better Together Film Festival, starting April 21, will showcase a half-dozen films in this space. Efforts such as Jesters & Fools and the Great American Punchline Tour have focused on comedy, showing other attempts to engage the Arts.

Regarding the other recommendation to “reduce intergroup anxiety,” More in Common identified two main approaches: correcting misperceptions (especially that Americans are less interested to connect across difference than in reality), and increasing Americans’ confidence to engage across differences (often by building skills to communicate and work together).

More Like US’s mission is correcting misperceptions, including correct misperceptions about political conversations. Our Perception Gap lesson plan/presentation covers many political misperceptions, including two misperceptions about conversation. (To its credit, More in Common coined the term Perception Gap.) One is a finding that Americans say they are interested in learning about the beliefs of those they disagree with, but incorrectly think that those who disagree with them are not as interested to learn about them. (In other words, a Democrat may say they are interested to learn about Republicans, but also think that Republicans are not as interested to learn about Democrats.) Another comes from another recent More in Common survey, showing that Republicans and Democrats think those in the other party are much more willing to believe it is acceptable to act with hostility during political conversations than in reality.

More Like US is fairly unique in this direct correction of misperceptions of each other in US politics. This said, organizations such as Beyond Conflict have developed approaches that correct misperceptions, including an intervention that was a top performer in the Strengthening Democracy Challenge led by Stanford. Beyond Conflict just released a valuable report about understanding and using meta-perception correction interventions. (Problematic meta-perceptions refer to second-order misperceptions, which Beyond Conflict defines in the report as “false beliefs about what individuals think others think about them and people like them.”)

We have also explored ways to build skills to communicate across politics at scale, and to increase confidence to engage across difference. We have a mnemonic to be SVL (pronounced something like “civil”), involving telling Stories, relating to a conversation partners’ Values, and Listening closely. This is based on guidance from Stanford Sociology professor Robb Willer.

Numerous other groups recognize that not all Americans have the time, interest, energy, confidence, etc., to attend a conversation workshop, and some have developed their mnemonics to try to convey the most important conversation tips at scale. A complimentary mnemonic to SVL (that also sounds very similar) is CIV (as in CIVil), based on guidance from John Sarrouf, co-Executive Director at Essential Partners, put together by UNC Psychology professor Kurt Gray in his recent book Outraged. While there are various details of CIV, it stands for Connect (often on non- or less-political topics), Invite (generally exploring whether to broach more difficult subjects like politics), and Validate (making a conversation partner feel appreciated). CIV primarily provides context for starting a conversation and making a conversation partner feel validated. At the same time, SVL gives more guidance about how to converse so they can work well together.

While I will not cover them in much depth here, The Connection Opportunity report has numerous other relevant and insightful findings. These include the insight that Americans have much greater interest in having discussions that work toward a mutual goal instead of conversations about group tensions, and a sobering reminder that “Americans are most apprehensive about connecting across political differences (compared to other areas of difference).” Clearly, a lot of work remains to be done, especially on the political front.

More in Common’s The Connection Opportunity provides some of the best research into what encourages Americans to connect across politics, among other lines of difference, and what holds Americans back. It also provides useful guidance about how to increase connection.

I have focused on two of the recommendations in the report to increase perceptions that connecting across difference is the “community norm,” and to reduce intergroup anxiety. More Like US and many other organizations are already doing a substantial amount to advance these recommendations. Yet there is so much opportunity for other work in these areas. Hopefully, The Connection Opportunity inspires other organizations and institutions to focus additional efforts on achieving these goals at scale.

** The names of the organizations More in Common and More Like US are similar, though there is no formal relationship. A simple distinction is that More in Common primarily does underlying research, often in publications or Substack posts, while More Like US does much more outreach with this kind of research. Yet More in Common does some outreach, especially in terms of getting journalists and columnists to write about research, and we at More Like US do some research in terms of having academic partners test the effectiveness of our outreach approaches.

James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less