In recent years political polarization has erected one of the strongest barriers to democracies functioning, both in the US and globally. Over the past two decades, surveys have shown that a rift has emerged between Democrats and Republicans in the US which is accompanied by an enormous distrust of each other. A study conducted in 2022 by the Pew Research Center showed that roughly 72% of Americans believe that the reason social relationships have been growing more bitter and hostile is due to increasing partisan divides.
A very different area of research accompanied this discord with one looking into the possibility of an easier way of reducing polarization: Frankness devoid of contempt on both sides. Can such exposure to differing opinions over a prolonged period of time lessen political contempt?
There is quite a bit of evidence to support the intergroup contact theory and there are many studies where efforts of depolarization have been undertaken. Researchers have posited a number of psychological mechanisms that can explain why cross party relationships might be helpful and in some cases harmful.
While the world has only moved towards polarization and animosity, the right conditions being cultivated and put into place could in fact lead to relationships building instead of dividing people.
Understanding Political Polarization
Polarization involves more than just preferences for a particular policy; it also includes ways in which affective polarization occurs when partisans consider the opposing side to be immoral or an element of threat. According to Shanto Iyengar and his colleagues (2019) this is “the tendency of Republicans and Democrats to not only see each other as wrong but to actually detest and fear each other.”
The emotional touch is incredible: a 2022 Pew survey revealed that 45 percent of the Democrats as compared to 35 percent of the Republicans consider the people from the opposing party as “more immoral” than the rest of the Americans.
The roots of polarization are many. The fragmentation of the media, sorting by geography, and social media that emphasizes accuracy have turned partisan bias into an engagement term. A study by Bakshy et al., in 2015 claimed that the algorithms of Facebook surround the users with what they would like to see, strengthening the fider ideological bubble. Also, geographic segregation, where liberals tend to cluster in cities while conservatives in rural places, restricts natural cross-partisan division.
The Role of Exposure: Intergroup Contact Theory
The concept of intergroup exposure reducing prejudice began with psychologist Gordon Allport’s Contact Theory in 1954. Allport posited that, under certain conditions of equal status, shared goals, cooperation, and institutional backing, bias could be lessened through intergroup contact. This was later supported by a meta-analysis conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp in 2006 which said that contact consistently reduces prejudice for all races, ethnicities, and political groups.
When it comes to politics, simply exposing one self to different viewpoints might be enough to help one sympathize with ‘the other side’. A seminal study conducted by Broockman et al in 2022 discovered that personal experience discrimination door-to-door campaigns were effective in reducing transphobia as well as anti-trans policy support for up to 3 months. Similarly, Levendusky and Stecula in 2021 showed that discussing immigration in a non-aggressive way helped to reduce partisan aggression towards the issue.
On its own, exposure has its limits. One of the leading scholars in political behavior, Diana Mutz discovered in 2002 that cross cutting discussions result in a greater awareness of disputes, which might make people uncomfortable. To rectify this, one must focus on quality of interaction instead; superficial discussions increase the chances of misunderstanding while constructive debates guarantee understanding.
Mechanisms of Change: How Friendships Reduce Polarization
Empathy and Perspective-Taking
One-sided views are often disregarded when emotions are at play. According to a study done by Fettig et al., participants that were put in politically heterogeneous pairs were able to report more empathy during divisive discussions when they centered their attention on core values like family or security. Neuroscientific research by Bruneau et al. 2017 suggests the act of putting oneself in another’s position activates certain neuron networks associated with empathy that mitigates the dehumanization of opposing sides.
Reduced Anxiety
Fear of negative intergroup interactions, termed as intergroup anxiety, tends to promote avoidance according to Page-Gould et al. 2008. Cross-group friendships lead to diminished anxiety after several positive social interactions, forming a cycle of positive engagement. This is supportive of the ‘ Contact hypothesis’ whereby merely being aware of in-group acquaintances who have out-group friends can enhance attitudes.
Common Identity Formation
Gaertner & Dovidio presented the Unifying Ingroup Identity Concept, which proposes that stressing a shared identity such as a nationality rather than from different political parties mitigates biases. For instance, a Democrat and a Republican joint undertaking a community project may start viewing each other as Americans first.
Case Studies and Experiments
The Stanford Democracy Project
The Stanford Democracy Project was launched in 2021 by Druckman et al. and it involved Zoom sessions. Democrat and Republican participants were divided into groups of two where they had discussions in pairs. After the six sessions, participants reported that their negative stereotypes had decreased by 20%. Participants were also reported to show an inclination towards collaborating on climate change. The facilitators provided for the winter session ensured that there was an emphasis on common goals.
More in Common’s “Untangle” Workshops
More In Common provides a fascinating conceptualization of dialogue called the “Untangle” Workshops. These workshops allowed participants to tell their personal narratives instead of debating over politically motivated policies. The evaluation of the pilot program in 2020 revealed a startling 30% increase in belief for collaboration across policy divides.
Cross-Party Roommates
Cross-Party Roommates – College students assigned random roommates from different ideological backgrounds exhibited moderate views over time. This is a surprising outcome from a study conducted by Munn (2021) as conventional thinking assumes that sharing accommodation with someone from a different ideological perspective would reinforce your conviction.
Challenges and Limitations
When Contact Fails
Sometimes Contact can make things worse rather than better just like it does under unequal conditions. This is captured by Barlow et al. (2012) where negative intergroup interactions – for example, combative intergroup discussions – can lead to greater prejudice than intergroup friendly discourse. Superficial arguments on social media do not foster empathy either.
Structural Barriers
Polarized media and gerrymandering deepens the divide. As McCarty (2019) describes, there are few incentives for politicians to compromise when they do not have to appeal to anyone outside their partisan base which worsens the division in society.
Self-Selection Bias
People willing to forge friendships across the political divide may be less polarized themselves. Moderates DDR and Levendusky (2019) warn that contact initiatives are most likely to be embraced by moderates and hence, the positive impacts are limited.
Policy Implications
- Educational Interventions
Schools can introduce contact-based programs, for instance, mixed-partisan student exchange programs. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and and Emotional Learning (CASEL) promotes curricula with a focus on empathy and active listening skills. - Workplace Initiatives
For instance, Salesforce has established “bridging” workshops in which employees talk about values prior to discussing politics. Dobbin and Kalev (2016) research shows that diversity training aimed at collaboration fosters cohesion in workplaces. - Community Programs
Urban Rural Action is an organization that pairs volunteers from different backgrounds to work on projects such as an opioid epidemic and infrastructure issues within a community. Such projects implement Allport’s “shared goals” condition. - Tech Regulation
The EU’s Digital Services Act (2023) requires that social media platforms provide explanations on how algorithms sort content. This approach may lessen the impact of social media echo chambers.
Conclusion
Bridging friendships has gotten more necessary as the political climate gets even more divided. Such social bonds are not supposed to be the ultimate solution to partisanship but progress has shown that they form a considerable part of the solution. When cross-party friendships are established political operation gets less partisan and so do the relationships and communication. These ties are, however, contingent on various factors including fair media coverage and appropriate political encouragement.
As there are firm commitments for strengthening the relationships between communities and institutions, the challenge now is the implementation which is often affected by the intricate nature of sociology and deep-rooted problems in the system. Moving forward entails tolerance, understanding, and an effort to view your rivals as collaborative partners working towards preserving democracy.
References
- Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
- Bakshy, E., et al. (2015). Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa1160.
- Barlow, F. K., et al. (2012). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. APA PsycNet.
- Broockman, D., et al. (2022). Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.abm0695.
- Bruneau, E., et al. (2017). PNAS. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1705063114.
- Druckman, J. N., et al. (2021). PNAS. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026261118.
- Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing Intergroup Bias. Psychology Press.
- Iyengar, S., et al. (2019). Annual Review of Political Science. Annual Reviews.
- Levendusky, M. S., & Stecula, D. A. (2021). Political Behavior. Springer.
- McCarty, N. (2019). Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
- Mutz, D. C. (2002). American Political Science Review. Cambridge University Press.
- Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. APA PsycNet.
Pew Research Center. (2022). Political Polarization in the American Public. Pew Research.
