Cross-ideological Communication: The Impact of Real Conversations Compared to Imagined Ones
Loading...
Date
2024-01-09
Authors
Niella, Tamara
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Oregon
Abstract
Political polarization has visibly increased in the last few years. A sense of divisiveness has been exacerbated by a surge in social media communication about contentious issues which has been replacing face-to-face conversations about these topics. Evidence shows that people avoid discussing hot-button topics face-to-face and hold pessimistic expectations about how these interactions will go. However, research has shown that these conversations tend to go better than expected. Intergroup Contact Theory suggests that interacting with those in other groups can reduce intergroup conflict. This opens the question of whether there are benefits of having people engage in face-to-face cross-ideological conversations. The present dissertation aims to answer this through an experimental study conducted online via video calls. In one condition, pairs of people with opposing views on a moral issue were instructed to have a short conversation about that issue. In the other condition, people imagined such conversations instead. Outcomes from the actual conversations were compared to expectations about the imagined ones. Using a broad sample of adults from Argentina (n = 170) with polarized opinions, this study measured A) whether an agreement on the topic was reached or expected; B) participants’ assessments about the quality (real or imagined) of the conversation and their partner; C) participants’ willingness to engage in future cross-ideological conversations; and D) change in participants’ opinion on the issue after conversation or imagination. Contrary to predictions, there were no significant differences in the proportion of participants reaching agreement between those who had conversations and those who imagined them. Also contrary to predictions, participants’ opinions on the issue did not change. However, consistent with hypotheses, those who engaged in an actual conversation rated the experience more positively than those who imagined one, regardless of whether an agreement (actual or expected) was reached. Finally, participants who had actual conversations reported greater willingness to engage in future cross-ideological communication than those who merely imagined them. This study demonstrates the benefits of face-to-face dialogue in communication about contentious ideological issues and offers a practical paradigm for future studies.
Description
Keywords
Communication, Conversation, Imagination, Polarization