It seems intuitive to assume that securing communication across partisan divides, such as between Democrats and Republicans, can help to narrow any ideological gaps that exist and foster more common ground. This, in turn, can help to ease the corrosive polarization that so grips so many liberal democracies around the world.

Research from UC Berkeley suggests things may not be quite so straightforward, however, as they found that brief, cross-partisan conversations can often have little impact on narrowing divisions, especially if the topics are highly sensitive.

“There’s an assumption that these conversations will have positive consequences for democracy,” the researchers explain. “Under this assumption, someone might say, ‘I’ve gotten to know the other side, and I like them more, and so now I’m more OK with my representative working with a representative from the other side, and I’m less likely to vote for a politician in my party who’s going to try to disenfranchise the other side.’

“Basically, though, we didn’t find any of that,” they continue. “Simply liking the other side’s voters more doesn’t appear to affect your political behavior.”

Bridging the divide

That’s not to say, of course, that cross-party engagement is not important, but rather it’s important to understand what kind of engagement is most effective at easing polarization.

The researchers conducted a couple of experiments that paired Republicans and Democrats together for one-on-one conversations about topics that are not generally seen as controversial, such as what makes a day perfect. Such conversations typically resulted in polarization reducing, but this was only a short-term phenomenon, as within three months the reductions had generally vanished.

The researchers then repeated the process but for more controversial topics, with participants asked to discuss either why they identify with their own party or why they dislike the other party. This process saw no reduction in polarization among participants.

All is not lost, however, as the process revealed that when people were discussing what they liked about their own party, a common complaint was that people didn’t feel listened to by their partner. When they spoke about what they disliked about their opponents, however, not only did they feel like they were listened to more, but the conversations typically lasted longer.

Small progress

As a result, while the process didn’t necessarily change the political opinions of the participants, they were at least more likely to believe that cross-partisan conversations were important after the experiment, with modest improvements in warmth towards those from opposing camps.

“People tend to think their own party is OK, but they don’t love their own party,” the researchers explain. “Their feelings are lukewarm. And so when someone else says, ‘Here’s what I don’t like about your party,’ most people will agree and say, ‘Yeah, my party isn’t perfect.'”

Interestingly, the findings also highlight how the conversations were generally civil in tone, and nearly always considerably more civil than is often the case on social media.

“None of the conversations that I looked at devolved into the kind of arguments that you would see on Facebook,” the researchers explain. “Our research participants didn’t leave hating each other more. In some ways, this is maybe better than people would have expected.

“When we think about the other side, we tend to think about the people who show up on social media saying the most extreme things in the most uncivil way. But that really is not how the average person interacts when they’re actually talking face-to-face.”

While these findings don’t suggest that our polarized world is going anywhere anytime soon, they do nonetheless provide a glimmer of hope. These findings might also improve if the conversations were more enduring and less of a one-off in nature. Ultimately, however, democracy will inevitably be difficult and things like polarization and conflict are conflicts of it rather than bugs.

“Democracy exists to manage the inevitable differences of opinion that exist in any society,” the authors conclude. “The differences of opinion are not themselves necessarily a problem. But people do need to be able to discuss them.”