With fears over the polarized nature of society not abating even after the Biden election, there have been numerous attempts to both understand and reduce that divide. One of the more interesting comes from a recent study by UCLA that aimed to get liberals and conservatives to have meaningful and polite political discussions with one another.

The researchers found that hosting the conversations over Zoom seemed to be key to their success. This not only strips away the anonymity of social media but also the tendency to chase likes and popularity that can so encourage us to play to our own gallery. This resulted in participants not only having a greater appreciation of other people’s views, but also finding the conversations more enjoyable than they expected.

Pleasant conversations

Volunteers were recruited who each had strong political opinions from both liberal and conservative wings in the United States. They were first asked what they expected from a conversation with a political opponent and how they thought they’d feel afterward.

With social media providing exposure to polarized pile-ons, most reported dread of the conversations and expected them to be full of rage and conflict. As a result, most thought they’d feel pretty bad by the end. Indeed, such was the sense of dread that many failed to turn up for the conversations after this initial questioning.

Those that went through with the Zoom conversation experienced an awakening. The process required them first to have a Zoom call with someone with the same views as them before then being paired with an opponent. In half of the subsequent conversations, the partner from the initial conversation was allowed to silently observe the second conversation.

Privacy matters

The presence of the in-group observer seemed to play a major role, as when people talked privately the conversations were usually polite and congenial, albeit with the occasional raising of temperatures. The researchers liken things to discussions of politics around the dinner table at family gatherings where there is a general desire to keep the peace and so opinions are muted.

Participants in this condition reported less time being spent in conflict than they expected and generally finding it not only less stressful but more enjoyable than they had originally predicted. What’s more, they also said that they liked their partner more than they expected, and they were even more logical and less emotional than expected.

This flipped when participants knew that a member of their ingroup was watching on, as it encouraged them to stick to their ideological guns more. This meant that conversations were more tense and less common ground was found. As a result, the conversations were rated as more stressful.

Despite this, however, the conversations were still rated as less difficult and more enjoyable than they expected, and participants generally had a positive impression of their conversation partner.

The results suggest that Zoom, and similar digital chat platforms, could be an effective medium to allow gaps to be bridged and more open dialogue established. Of course, achieving meaningful changes will require such conversations to occur at scale, which is perhaps easier said than done, but the findings nonetheless provide a possible way ahead.