But Kellogg’s research suggests it’s worth doing—and it’s possible to approach political discussions in a healthy and constructive way. Here are some tactics that might help.
1. Use science-based strategies to set aside your biases about “the other side”
It’s not just your imagination. Something has really changed in American politics, he says Eli J. Finkelprofessor of Management and Organizations. Especially in the last five years, “the two sides hate each other so much.”
In one study, Finkel and colleagues reviewed 200 academic publications in hopes of understanding what lies at the heart of this newfound rivalry and what we can do about it.
One breakthrough: the problem is less political polarization and more partisan animosity. It turns out that the average liberal and conservative haven’t gotten any farther apart in how they think about basic political issues, but they’ve come to dislike each other a lot more than they once did. In the 1970s, when pollsters asked voters to rate from zero to 100 their feelings about the average supporter of the opposing party, “you would get something in the middle of the scale, about 50. Today, it’s closer to 20Finkel says. In other words, we don’t have a problem of issues – we have a problem of emotions masquerading as a fight over policy.
This may explain why some of the most promising interventions to reduce partisan hostility that researchers have identified have focused on correcting misconceptions. For example, a study found that Republicans and Democrats overestimated the extent to which the other side dehumanized them—by as much as 300 percent. By correcting such misconceptions, other research has foundcan reduce hostility rates.
Similarly, several studies found that exposure to personal experiences of political opponents, as well as thoughtful arguments for their positions, softens people’s views of them.
“We don’t hate the other side because we understand what they stand for,” says Finkel. “We hate the other side because we have constructed villains, misrepresenting the average political opponent as a caricature zealot.”
2. Recognize that social media distorts the political debate
Why are online political debates so vicious?
One explanation, according to Finkel’s additional research, lies in the people who choose to choose to choose them. In a study of Reddit commenters, Finkel and Kellogg co-authored Michalis Mamakos found that people commenting on partisan forums are just the rudest, no matter the topic of discussion. So trolls will troll, no matter what they’re talking about.
“The toxicity we see in online political contexts is an overrepresentation of the people who choose to choose them,” says Mamakos. “And these people drive away the nicest people who don’t want to get involved in this kind of conflict. This over-representation provides a misleading picture of the seriousness of the divide.”
3. Recognize that social media distorts the way we perceive others
It’s also true that digital communication can make us see others as angrier than they really are, according to William Bradyassistant professor of Management and Organizations. Brady and several colleagues found a consistent mismatch in how people interpreted political posts on Twitter (now X).
Specifically, users perceived more moral outrage in political posts than authors felt when writing them. This is especially true for people who regularly use social media to learn about politics. As a result, the study finds, people are beginning to perceive anger as the norm on digital platforms.
Both this study and the previous one suggest that platforms need to do more to curb unsolicited conversations — and users, for their part, should recognize that what they see online may not be representative of how things really are. people feel or will behave offline.
4. Be curious about other people’s perspectives
As an assistant professor of marketing, Jacob Tiny he has a lot of expertise in the psychology of persuasion. But as he explained in an episode of The Insightful Leader podcast, there is one important face he has not he was able to swing when it comes to politics: his dad.
However, through research and personal experience, Teeny has learned how to have more successful conversations with a political opponent.
For example: choose your moments carefully. “Make sure the person doesn’t feel like this conversation has started, or that it’s the end of the day after a long day of work,” she says.
It has too conducted research in why we tend to avoid talking to people who disagree with us. The biggest deterrent, he found, was the fear that the other person wouldn’t really listen.
But Teeny says that if you enter the conversation making it clear that you’re interested in hearing from someone, they’re more likely to show interest in what you have to say.
One of the easiest ways to do this is to simply ask about the other person’s opinion and why they have it. The goal here is not to convince, but rather to build trust.
“If you try to jump right into the persuasion part, you’re skipping the most important step of letting them open up to the idea that there are reasonable and valid perspectives on the other side,” he says. Persuasion can happen over time, “but if you haven’t bought them into at least being open to hearing another perspective, you’re not going to get anywhere.”
So start by listening—you might be surprised how far it gets you.
5. Have hope: former enemies can develop trust
There is no doubt that the current political moment can be frustrating and hope can be hard to find. But take heart: even after the most extreme kinds of conflict, we can learn to trust each other again.
This is the finding of a study by Nour Kteilyprofessor of management and organizations, focused on the peace process in Colombia. The country was torn apart by the armed conflict between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the government that began in the 1960s. Despite a peace agreement approved in 2016, former FARC members have struggled to reintegrate into society. This is likely because many Colombians have never met a current or former member of the FARC, and that lack of contact has allowed hostility to flourish.
Kteily and his colleagues found that a simple intervention can help people overcome some doubts about their former enemies. Watching a five-minute video featuring interviews with former FARC fighters increased support for peace and reintegration among non-FARC Colombians—a shift in attitudes that persisted three months after the video was shown.
The result extended to real-world behavior: compared to a control group, participants who saw the video expressed a greater willingness to hire ex-FARC members and were more likely to donate to a nonprofit that helps ex-FARC members .
“This research is proof of principle,” explains Kteily. “It doesn’t mean that all we need to do is show Colombians a five-minute video and we’ll solve the problem. But what it does show is that there is a chance that media interventions can change minds.”
