What Can Bridge Political Divides?

In a world where politics have become tribal, and discussions with people we disagree with seem nearly impossible, is there a way we can reduce political hostility? That is the question our research tackled.

Basing truth on the facts has long been considered the gold standard for a functioning democracy, good journalism, and rational decision-making. This common belief stretches back to the Enlightenment with philosophers and scientists alike pursuing truth through objective facts and evidence. This notion, that facts should be the guiding light toward truth and understanding, is also supported by everyday people’s beliefs.

What Creates Political Respect?

In our research, we focused on people’s beliefs about what motivates political respect. Participants were asked to write down, “What a political opponent would have to say to increase your respect for them.” We found that 56% of participants believed facts and statistics would drive respect, while only 21% believed experience sharing would. However, this intuition is wrong. While we all believe facts are truth, in reality, personal experiences are seen as both more undeniable and more true—making personal experiences powerful in bridging political and moral divides.

Consider a conversation with an opponent. Participants learned about someone who disagreed with them based on personal experiences (as an example: “I disagree with your pro-gun stance because of my first-hand experience when my daughter was injured by a stray bullet”), or facts (such as: “I disagree with your pro-gun stance based on statistics I read in a governmental gun policy report”). We found that participants respected opponents who based their views on their experiences more than on facts These findings run counter to people’s intuitions, but support past research showing that narratives can improve social behaviors such as increasing donating behavior and empathy.

Face-To-Face Conversations Confirm This Effect

We went up to people on the street and asked them to speak with someone who disagreed with their views on gun policy. If they said yes, they were introduced to a research assistant (who they believed was another participant). This research assistant pretended to have opposing gun policy views, either based on their own experiences or facts. The two engaged in a recorded face-to-face conversation about their opposing gun policy views. The recordings showed that participants saw opponents as more rational (and respected them more) when they based their views on experiences rather than facts.

It’s True in “Real Life” Too

We analyzed 137 transcripts from actual Fox News and CNN interviews, where political opponents spoke with one another—such as a liberal guest interviewed on Fox News. We analyzed what they said and also how the interviewer treated the guest, by assessing how rational they seemed to think the guest was (“I see why you would think that”), and how respectful they were towards the guest (not interrupting the guest, showing appreciation for the guest’s participation in the interview). When real opponents shared experiences, they were viewed as more rational, and rational guests were also respected more.

We looked at other settings, too. YouTube videos that discussed experiences, rather than statistics, also received more positive comments from viewers, and New York Times op-ed writers were seen as more rational and were more respected when they argued based on personal experiences rather than facts. We also found that experiences were useful across a variety of divisive political discussions including climate policy, guns, abortion, and immigration.

However, not all personal experiences are equally effective in improving conversations with political opponents. We found that harmful personal experiences such as highlighting one’s own suffering from gun violence, rather than non-harmful experiences with guns like taking a gun safety course produce the greatest impressions of truth and rationality, and the greatest respect.

While experience sharing is seemingly fruitful, are such benefits also extended to historically subjugated groups such as women or people of color? Reports of victimization and harm by these groups are often dismissed—especially when they challenge the status quo. In another study, participants read about a Black woman who disagreed with the participant about gun policy. Results again indicated that sharing experiences increased respect.

While experience sharing can be used as a tool for good, it can also be weaponized by bad actors. With experiences being seen as undeniable, people are less likely to question their credibility. Bad actors can take advantage of this tendency, sharing false experiences that endorse misinformation or extremism with little scrutiny. Being aware of how experience sharing can be a force for good (or evil) is essential for both improving our conversations and society. 

We think the reason harmful personal experiences are especially powerful in bridging political divides is that harm is understandable and universal. However, we do not wish to say facts do not matter. Facts are key for any functioning society, and therefore should continue to be considered by policymakers, scientists, journalists, and everyday people. However, if you find yourself in a difficult (or uncomfortable) conversation with a friend, family member, or co-worker who disagrees with you about politics, consider building mutual respect by sharing your personal experiences.

For Further Reading

Kubin, E., Puryear, C., Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6), 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008389118.

Van Bavel, J. J., Reinero, D. A., Spring, V., Harris, E. A., & Duke, A. (2021). Speaking my truth: Why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(8), 1-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100280118

Emily Kubin is a PhD Candidate at the University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany and research affiliate at the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has published work on political polarization, bridging political divides, and the media. You can follow her on Twitter @emily_kubin.

Kurt Gray is an Associate Professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he is also the director of the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding. He has published work on morality and bridging political divides.