By John Salak –
Maybe it’s okay to talk about politics with a stranger even in this currently politically charged environment. Heck, it may even do a person some good, at least according to a recent study.
The idea of engaging someone who holds different political views is gut-wrenching for many if not most over fears the exchange will turn verbally brutal. Americans, after all, are already experiencing deep stress over the country’s political divide and recent elections as WellWell has previously reported.
Almost 70 percent of voters, in fact, reported being stressed out over the last presidential election and there is little to believe the national anxiety levels have lowered since then.
Yet avoiding discussing politics may not help matters. In fact, research by several universities suggests these types of conversations may actually be gratifying. Low expectations, in fact, may help explain why people think those on the opposite political side have more extreme views than they actually do, co-authors Kristina A. Wald, University of Pennsylvania; Michael Kardas, Oklahoma State University; and Nicholas Epley, University of Chicago, reported in an article about their research.
“Mistakenly fearing a negative interaction may create misplaced partisan divides, not only keeping people from connecting with each other but also keeping people from learning about each other and from each other,” they explained.
The researchers found, not surprisingly, that people prefer to avoid hot-button issues, especially with others who disagree with them. People also tend to advise their friends and relatives to avoid such conversations.
The academic threesome, however, believed that discussing political differences might be a positive experience, in part because people fail to appreciate the extent to which conversations are informative and draw people closer together.
They tested their theory by first asking nearly 200 participants for their opinions on divisive political and religious topics, such as abortion and climate change. The researchers then divided the participants into pairs and assigned them to discuss one of these topics. Some participants were told in advance whether their partners agreed with them or not, but others entered the discussions unaware of their partners’ views.
The participants then reported how positively or negatively they expected the conversation to be, then engaged in the discussion while being video recorded. Afterward, they rated their dialogue. Research assistants also viewed the videos of the conversations and evaluated them across several dimensions.
Overall, the participants underestimated how positive their interactions would be, especially when they disagreed with their partner, the researchers noted. But this tendency was especially strong when people actually had a conversation with their partner rather than simply learning of their beliefs in a monologue.
“Misunderstanding the outcomes of a conversation,” they wrote, “could lead people to avoid discussing disagreements more often, creating a misplaced barrier to learning, social connection, free inquiry, and free expression.”
The team did offer up an important caveat. Their experiments involved participants talking with strangers. Their work did not explore how disagreements unfold among family and friends so maybe it is still worth avoiding hot-button topics with an unstable sibling or looned-out brother-in-law until more research is conducted.
