Abstract
Do anonymous online conversations between people with different political views exacerbate or mitigate partisan polarization? We created a mobile chat platform to study the impact of such discussions. Our study recruited Republicans and Democrats in the United States to complete a survey about their political views. We later randomized them into treatment conditions where they were offered financial incentives to use our platform to discuss a contentious policy issue with an opposing partisan. We found that people who engage in anonymous cross-party conversations about political topics exhibit substantial decreases in polarization compared with a placebo group that wrote an essay using the same conversation prompts. Moreover, these depolarizing effects were correlated with the civility of dialogue between study participants. Our findings demonstrate the potential for well-designed social media platforms to mitigate political polarization and underscore the need for a flexible platform for scientific research on social media.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Anonymized replication data are publicly available from the authors at this link: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LTVEHJ.
Code availability
Replication code for the main results in the manuscript is publicly available at this link: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LTVEHJ.
References
Voelkel, J., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. & Mernyk, J. Megastudy Identifying Successful Interventions to Strengthen Americans’ Democratic Attitudes (Institute for Policy Research Working Papers, 2022).
Baldassarri, D. & Bearman, P. Dynamics of political polarization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72, 784–811 (2007).
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization Working Paper No. 26669 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
DellaPosta, D., Shi, Y. & Macy, M. Why do liberals drink lattes? Am. J. Sociol. 120, 1473–1511 (2015).
Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).
Fiorina, M. P. & Abrams, S. J. Political polarization in the American public. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 563–588 (2008).
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 129–146 (2019).
Mason, L. Uncivil Agreement (Univ. Chicago Press, 2018).
Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).
Barberá, P. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Polit. Anal. 23, 76–91 (2015).
Sunstein, C. R. Republic.com (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002).
Levy, R. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 111, 831–70 (2021).
Settle, J. E. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).
Papacharissi, Z. Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444 (2004).
Price, V. in Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (eds Davies, T. & Gangadharan, S. P.) 37–58 (Univ. Chicago Press, 2009).
Bail, C. et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9216–9221 (2018).
Fishkin, J. S. & Luskin, R. C. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Polit. 40, 284–298 (2005).
Mutz, D. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
Zhang, K. Encountering dissimilar views in deliberation: political knowledge, attitude strength, and opinion change. Polit. Psychol. 40, 315–333 (2019).
Broockman, D. & Kalla, J. Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352, 220–224 (2016).
Fishkin, J. S., Siu, A., Diamon, L. & Bradburn, N. Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on ‘America in One Room’. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115, 1464–1481 (2021).
Balietti, S., Getoor, L., Goldstein, D. G. & Watts, D. J. Reducing opinion polarization: effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2112552118 (2021).
Levendusky, M. S. & Stecula, D. A. We Need to Talk (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021); https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781009042192/type/element
Santoro, E. & Broockman, D. E. The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: evidence from randomized experiments. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5515 (2022).
Cheng, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. & Leskovec, J. How community feedback shapes user behavior. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 8 41–50 (2014).
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am. Psychol. 39, 1123–1134 (1984).
Schroeder, J., Kardas, M. & Epley, N. The humanizing voice: speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1745–1762 (2017).
Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., Wang, C. & Siponen, M. Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Inf. Syst. Res. 27, 962–986 (2016).
Lapidot-Lefler, N. & Barak, A. Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 434–443 (2012).
Suler, J. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 7, 321–326 (2004).
Berg, J. The impact of anonymity and issue controversiality on the quality of online discussion. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 13, 37–51 (2016).
De Choudhury, M. & De, S. Mental health discourse on Reddit: self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. In Proc. 8th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 8 41–50 (2014).
Guilbeault, D., Becker, J. & Centola, D. Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9714–9719 (2018).
Strandberg, K. & Berg, J. Impact of temporality and identifiability in online deliberations on discussion quality: an experimental study. Javnost 22, 164–180 (2015).
Mansbridge, J. J. Beyond Adversary Democracy (Univ. Chicago Press, 1983).
Sanders, L. M. Against deliberation. Polit. Theory 25, 347–376 (1997).
Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A. & Watts, D. J. Who says what to whom on Twitter. Proc. 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '11) 705–714 (ACM, 2011).
Eady, G., Nagler, J., Guess, A., Zalinsky, J. & Tucker, J. A. How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. SAGE Open https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832705 (2019).
Guess, A. (Almost) everything in moderation: new evidence on Americans’ online media diets. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 65, 1007–1022 (2020).
King, G. & Persily, N. A new model for industry–academic partnerships. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 53, 703–709 (2019).
Lazer, D. M. J. et al. Computational social science: obstacles and opportunities. Science 369, 1060–1062 (2020).
Mynatt, E. et al. Harnessing the Computational and Social Sciences to Solve Critical Social Problems Tech. Rep. (National Science Foundation, 2020).
Hosseinmardi, H. et al. Examining the consumption of radical content on YouTube. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118, e2101967118 (2021).
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S. & Gentzkow, M. The welfare effects of social media. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 629–76 (2020).
Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J. & Snyder, J. M. The strength of issues: using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102, 215–232 (2008).
Dias, N. & Lelkes, Y. The nature of affective polarization: disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 66, 775–790 (2021).
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J. B. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 28–38 (2021).
Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).
Arceneaux, K & Wielen, R. J. V. Taming Intuition: How Reflection Minimizes Partisan Reasoning and Promotes Democratic Accountability (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W. & Rubin, D. B. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 91, 444–455 (1996).
Yeomans, M., Kantor, A. & Tingley, D. The politeness package: detecting politeness in natural language. R J. 10, 489–502 (2018).
Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F. & Gino, F. Conversational receptiveness: improving engagement with opposing views. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 160, 131–148 (2020).
Hartman, R. et al. Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1194–1205 (2022).
Levendusky, M. S. & Malhotra, N. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Polit. Commun. 33, 283–301 (2016).
Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).
Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14864–14872 (2020).
Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A. & Green, D. P. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behav. Public Policy 3, 129–158 (2019).
Enders, A. M. & Armaly, M. T. The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Polit. Behav. 41, 815–839 (2019).
Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x (2021).
Rossiter, E. The consequences of interparty conversation on outparty affect and stereotypes. In 2020 Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology (2020).
Wojcieszak, M. & Warner, B. R. Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Polit. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406 (2020).
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J. B. (Mis-)estimating affective polarization. J. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1086/715603 (2021).
White, I. K. & Laird, C. N. Beyond Adversary Democracy (Princeton Univ. Press, 2020).
Grossmann, M. & Hopkins, D. A. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats 1st edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).
Jahani, E. et al. An online experiment during the 2020 US–Iran crisis shows that exposure to common enemies can increase political polarization. Sci. Rep. 12, 19304 (2022).
Friedkin, N. & Johnsen, E. Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv. Group Process. 16, 1–29 (1999).
Acknowledgements
We thank C. Goode for assistance with software development. This research was funded by the Provost’s Office at Duke University (C.A.B., D.S.H. and A.V.), a Facebook Foundational Research Award (C.A.B. and A.V.), Templeton Foundation Award No. 62656 (C.A.B., D.S.H. and A.V.) and NSF CAREER Award No. DMS-2046880 (A.V.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.V., D.S.H., C.A.B., A.C., G.T., F.M. and B.G. designed the research. A.C. and C.A.B. created the mobile communication platform. B.G., D.S.H. and C.A.B. designed the survey. G.T., A.V. and C.A.B. analysed the data. D.S.H., C.A.B., A.V., A.C., B.G. and G.T. wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
C.A.B. served as an academic consultant for Twitter’s Incentives Team in early 2022, which explored new ways to increase positive behaviour on its platform. In this capacity, he has been paid US$2,675. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–16, Tables 1–16 and Discussion.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Combs, A., Tierney, G., Guay, B. et al. Reducing political polarization in the United States with a mobile chat platform. Nat Hum Behav 7, 1454–1461 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01655-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01655-0