Supporters of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and sympathizers of Senator Flávio Bolsonaro harbor stark misperceptions about each other, routinely viewing the opposing political camp as significantly more radical than their actual positions demonstrate, according to a recent study conducted by More in Common, Ipsos, and Ipec.
The nationwide survey, which interviewed 2,000 individuals across 130 Brazilian municipalities between August 6 and 10, examined the “perception gap” separating the two political groups. Researchers tested specific stereotypes by asking participants to estimate how political adversaries would respond to key statements on social and democratic issues, comparing those guesses against the actual positions held by the respondents. The findings reveal that both groups hold heavily distorted views of the other’s platform.
According to the findings, the divergence between perception and reality widens notably among respondents with higher education levels. Lulistas holding university degrees estimated bolsonaristas’ agreement with the social upward mobility of the poor, whereas actual agreement among bolsonaristas reached 86%. On the subject of equal pay for men and women, educated lulistas guessed an agreement rate, while actual backing among bolsonaristas hit 94%. These gaps reached 27 and 32 points respectively among college-educated lulistas, compared to 17 and 21 points among the broader population of lulistas regardless of schooling.
Among bolsonaristas with higher education, the expansion of the perception gap appeared in a more modest fashion. The miscalculation by bolsonaristas regarding how lulistas value the family rose from 22 to 27 points. Similarly, their misjudgment concerning the leftist defense of self-generated income climbed from 19 to 26 points.
Factors Behind the Polarization Gap
Although the research did not investigate the underlying causes of these growing misperceptions, Pablo Ortellado, executive director of More in Common Brazil, highlighted several hypotheses offered by social researchers. The first suggests that highly educated individuals interact less frequently with friends holding opposing ideological views. A homogeneous social circle makes it easier to believe that an adversary matches the negative caricature constructed by one’s own peer group.
A second possibility involves the heavy consumption of media outlets, digital influencers, and online networks aligned with one’s own political faction, lacking equivalent exposure to opposing viewpoints. Greater volume in information does not guarantee diversity; instead, it frequently supplies more sophisticated arguments to reinforce preexisting prejudices. A third hypothesis points to intellectualized citizens relying on abstract models to categorize the world, applying broad behavioral generalizations to political adversaries rather than engaging with real, complex individuals.
Did You Know? The research surveyed 2,000 people across 130 Brazilian municipalities between August 6 and 10, excluding the 18% of respondents who expressed no preference for either political figure.
Comparing Stereotypes and Reality
Additional coverage provided data detailing how these perception gaps manifest across specific cultural and economic assertions. On a scale from 0 to 100, bolsonaristas gave an average score of 94 supporting equal pay for equal work, while lulistas estimated their opponents’ average at 73. Regarding the idea that it is positive for poor citizens to travel by airplane and frequent places previously restricted to the wealthy, bolsonaristas recorded an 86 average against a lulista estimate of 69.
Conversely, bolsonaristas misjudged the conservative impulses of the left. On the statement that “the family is the base of everything,” lulistas expressed near-total agreement with a 95 average, whereas bolsonaristas anticipated a score of 72. On the assertion that poverty does not justify committing crimes, lulistas scored 86, while the right estimated their agreement at 67.
Expert Insight: Examining these disparities reveals that political hostility in national discourse is frequently fueled not by fundamental disagreements on basic societal values, but by exaggerated caricatures of the opposition that higher education and insulated media habits can inadvertently reinforce.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a perception gap in political research?
The perception gap measures the difference between what one political group imagines an opposing group will answer on a given issue and how the opposing group actually responds.
Did the study measure upcoming voting intentions?
No, the survey did not measure voting intentions, focusing instead on comparing political stereotypes with actual positions held by supporters.
How did education affect the perception gap?
The research found that the perception gap actually increases among individuals with higher education, particularly among college-educated lulistas evaluating conservative positions.