Abstract: "Opposing someone on a contentious sociopolitical issue often prompts criticism and conflict. People may be tempted to reduce such acrimony by expressing neutrality. Across 11 studies with North American samples, we find that, although people commonly express neutrality on controversial issues, observers are skeptical of others’ neutrality, judging them as similarly moral as those who oppose them those who explicitly oppose them. Unpacking lay beliefs about why people express neutrality sheds light on this disjunction between responses to the neutral self versus the neutral other. Specifically, people render more favorable attributions for their own neutrality (e.g., true indecision) than do observers (e.g., apathy, strategic behavior). Therefore, while neutrality is an often-invoked strategy to manage impressions, it is unlikely to succeed in doing so."
“Damage your reputation”…for a very narrow definition of reputation over a subset of people whose “positive” opinion and influence may actually be detrimental to your goals, your nation’s goals, and the world’s well-being, both long-term and even short-term. Meh.
Abstract: "Opposing someone on a contentious sociopolitical issue often prompts criticism and conflict. People may be tempted to reduce such acrimony by expressing neutrality. Across 11 studies with North American samples, we find that, although people commonly express neutrality on controversial issues, observers are skeptical of others’ neutrality, judging them as similarly moral as those who oppose them those who explicitly oppose them. Unpacking lay beliefs about why people express neutrality sheds light on this disjunction between responses to the neutral self versus the neutral other. Specifically, people render more favorable attributions for their own neutrality (e.g., true indecision) than do observers (e.g., apathy, strategic behavior). Therefore, while neutrality is an often-invoked strategy to manage impressions, it is unlikely to succeed in doing so."
reply