Simon Stocker, now a Research Fellow at University of Stuttgart, Germany, recently led a super interesting study. We believe it underscores the critical need for authentic, honest, and transparent communication in deeply polarized environments. This research was published in the British Journal of Political Science. It unpacks the contours and moving parts of political communication, especially in moments of heightened abnormality such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings reveal that effective communication is vital for engaging audiences entrenched in their beliefs, including those who subscribe to conspiracy theories.
The experimental study investigated two population-based survey experiments in Germany and Austria. It surveyed 2,132 respondents in Germany and 2,134 in Austria. The surveys explored significant political issues: one addressed the prioritization of health versus freedom in Germany, while the other examined attitudes towards mandatory vaccinations in Austria. These findings highlight the confusing and contradictory public opinion in the current age of confusion and division.
Findings from the German and Austrian Surveys
The survey conducted in Germany revealed that only 37.3% of respondents held strong pre-existing beliefs regarding the balance between health and freedom. In comparison, an alarming 69.5% of Austrian respondents stated fixed opinions on vaccines. This gap illustrates asymmetrical polarization with regards to distinct political atmospheres.
Stocker stressed that the approach of confronting people with differing opinions tends to lead to greater resistance. Rather than promote comprehension, it usually produces the opposite and worse effects. He stated, “These findings suggest that in the context of high polarization, confronting participants with counter-positions as well as asking them to seek out common ground with the other side is counterproductive and seems to be perceived as a challenge to one’s own position.”
The study found that a collaborative playbook was more successful than an adversarial one. In cases where parties were willing to cooperate, 50 percent were able to submit constructive offers to settle the matter. In more contentious environments, just 5% of respondents engaged in a constructive manner.
The Role of Open Communication Strategies
The paper calls for new creative communication approaches to creating understanding between diverging and hostile political camps. Stocker observed that even a very small intervention, like asking one open-ended question, can have a huge impact on facilitating conversation in tense and polarized settings. He remarked, “Only a minimal intervention in the form of an open-ended question makes a positive contribution under such polarized conditions.”
This is in harmony with the growing apprehension felt by André Bächtiger. He is the Managing Director of the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart. Moreover, he noted how complexity was disappearing from argumentative discourse and the failure to listen respectfully across the aisle. Bächtiger stated, “We are witnessing declining levels of argumentative complexity and of people listening respectfully to different sides of an argument, often in combination with a polarization of opinions.”
These results underline the importance of encouraging honest conversations, which can be a potent remedy for healing America’s fractured landscape. Prompt participants to interact with one another through creative, open-ended questions. This model is the best approach for creating meaningful dialogues with the potential to inspire new understanding on both sides.
Implications for Future Discourse
As our society continues to contend with growing political polarization, the stakes of this research go well beyond the ivory tower. Policymakers, community leaders, and educators alike should consider including the tactics of open communication into their toolkits when approaching divisive topics.
Taken together, the results from these two surveys illustrate a powerful mandate for change. There is a need to shift discussions away from a binary choice. Connecting with people’s concerns in a human-centered way can be much more effective than the adversarial debate approaches that just deepen the divide.