Cynthia de las Fuentes, PhD President at American Psychological Association | Official website
A recent report emphasizes the potential dangers of certain design features and platform functions for developing brains. The report offers eight recommendations for scientists, policymakers, and others to mitigate the ongoing risk to health, well-being, and civic life.
In an era of increasing polarization in democracies worldwide, civilized political debates may seem elusive. However, people still express a desire to discuss issues with those they disagree with—particularly individuals who present themselves as balanced and open to learning new information. This finding comes from two studies published by the American Psychological Association.
One study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, explored how U.S. politicians and ordinary Americans with opposing political beliefs could share their ideas on divisive issues in a way that improved respect regardless of political party.
Researchers reviewed a video series featuring real-world politicians solving political dilemmas designed to help voters evaluate the thoughtfulness of political candidates. They found that viewers from the opposing party were more open to learning about the politicians’ platform because the videos portrayed the politicians as balanced and pragmatic—two key characteristics of wise decision makers.
Co-author Curtis Puryear, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University said, “Our findings suggest that if you show you care about understanding the other side’s concerns, it goes a long way towards fostering respect.”
Puryear and co-author Kurt Gray, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conducted eight experiments with over 3,500 participants. They tested the effectiveness of political messages that relied on balanced pragmatism—an approach to conflict focusing on showing concern for both sides’ interests while prioritizing practical solutions.
In one experiment involving 505 Americans from different political parties evaluating posts on social media by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. From over 50,000 posts made by official accounts, researchers selected 120 posts discussing political issues without criticizing the opposing party but varied in balance and pragmatism.
Participants evaluated 30 posts, rating them based on balance, pragmatism, overall tone, divisiveness, respect for the politician, and interest in hearing more about the politician’s point of view. The researchers found that posts combining balance with pragmatism were most likely to increase participants’ respect for a politician and their willingness to engage with them.
In another experiment, researchers explored whether ordinary Americans could use balanced pragmatism to improve their political conversations. They found that people were as likely to want to converse with someone who disagreed with their views on immigration when that person appeared balanced and pragmatic as they were to talk with someone from their own political party.
Another study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that people could be willing to discuss controversial topics such as gender-neutral language with people who had opposing views when both express intellectual humility.
Intellectual humility is the recognition that your knowledge has limits and your beliefs could be wrong. It does not mean that someone who is intellectually humble is insecure or lacks informed opinions; it merely acknowledges that they do not know everything.
Lead author Larissa Knöchelmann, MSc, a research fellow and advanced PhD student at Philipps-Universität Marburg said, “Political discussions are important for a democratic society. When people have conversations, they can learn about new perspectives, reduce misunderstandings and work together.”
The researchers conducted four experiments involving over 1,600 participants. They found that intellectually humble participants had warmer feelings and more positive evaluations toward groups of people with different political opinions. Intellectual humility also shaped whether participants were willing to interact with others or not.
