Researchers successfully tested 25 different approaches. Two proved most effective.
As a country we are deeply divided. That much upon. But there may be ways to bridge the chasm, according to a new megastudy .
The researchers discovered that some attitudes糖心传媒攕pecifically, support for undemocratic practices (such as trying to curtail free speech, spreading intentional misinformation, or attempting to curb voting in certain precincts) and partisan violence糖心传媒攁re clearly distinct from partisan animosity (a strong dislike of or deep distrust between supporters of the opposite party). Thus, lessening animosity does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the other two attitudes.
On the flip side, successful interventions that reduced partisan animosity tended to reduce a host of other problems, such as social distrust, social distance, opposition to bipartisan cooperation, biased evaluation of politicized facts, and support for undemocratic candidates.
According to , the Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of at the 糖心传媒 (one of the six original researchers to start the megastudy), two of the evaluated approaches were particularly effective across outcomes糖心传媒攅ven for reducing support for undemocratic practices and partisan violence:
- Correcting misperceptions of the other side
- Using cues to show that elites, such as political candidates or officeholders, place great importance on upholding democratic norms
糖心传媒淧eople tend to exaggerate the antidemocratic attitudes or the violent inclinations of the other side. And they exaggerate just how different the other side is from your own,糖心传媒� says Druckman, who is an expert on democracy and political division. 糖心传媒淲hen you provide information or opportunities to interact with people from the other side and learn about some commonality, that seemed to be a pretty effective approach. The focus on addressing misperceptions seems to be very, very useful.糖心传媒�
What is a megastudy?
Political scientist James Druckman knows about designing experiments, having written or edited books on experimental political science, including the award-winning (Cambridge University Press, 2022). Research methods across disciplines include megastudies, or experiments that can test several treatments simultaneously using the same outcomes, control condition, and sample. Check out on how to design and conduct a megastudy.
Megastudy assesses 250-plus approaches
Back in 2019, when Druckman first got involved with the project as a faculty member at Northwestern University, he figured the task ahead would be considerable. Little did he know the gargantuan undertaking it would become.
Pockets of people糖心传媒攁cademics in various disciplines and civic organizations alike糖心传媒攈ad begun working on behavioral interventions to address the three most pertinent threats to US democracy: partisan hostility, antidemocratic attitudes, and noticeable support for political violence. But the findings remained fragmented. What was needed was one large, unified collection of ideas where the best could be tested in rigorously controlled, scientific experiments.
The resulting study spans a whopping 32,059 study participants, 252 treatment ideas (whittled down to 25 interventions), 85 coauthors, five countries, and dozens of universities, institutions, and organizations. The researchers come from the fields of political science, sociology, psychology, economics communications, and marketing, as well as from civic organizations.
One approach does not fit all
While most of the tested interventions (self-administered online modules about 8 minutes in length) worked to reduce partisan hostility, only about a quarter successfully lowered support for undemocratic practices. And just one-fifth proved useful in reducing support for political violence.
The degree to which those interventions worked was also telling.
The researchers found that it糖心传媒檚 much easier, for example, to reduce a person糖心传媒檚 animosity toward someone of the opposite political opinion than it is to reduce someone糖心传媒檚 support for political violence. According to Druckman, that糖心传媒檚 in part because support for violence is already relatively low, so there糖心传媒檚 less room for reduction. Yet, Druckman notes, the minority who supports violence is 糖心传媒渓ikely more extreme in its opinions and, therefore, harder to convince to change its views.糖心传媒�
in the megastudy:
- 23 significantly reduced partisan animosity by up to 10.5 percentage points
- 6 significantly reduced support for undemocratic practices by up to 5.8 percentage points
- 5 reduced support for partisan violence by up to 2.8 percentage points
At times, the results were surprisingly mixed.
Druckman tells the story of one video that showed a montage of political violence around the globe糖心传媒攊n Venezuela, Russia, and Zimbabwe糖心传媒攚here pro-democracy supporters engaged in violent struggles. The video was effective in lessening partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes. However, it backfired when it came to study participants糖心传媒� condoning partisan violence, which the video increased.
糖心传媒淚 think people may have thought that you need a kind of defensive violence to counteract the tearing down of democracy, perhaps, but it糖心传媒檚 hard to say for sure,糖心传媒� Druckman notes.
Which megastudy interventions work best?
The answer may depend on what specific undemocratic problem you are trying to address.
Partisan animosity
Highlighting sympathetic, politically dissimilar people and emphasizing their common ground was effective in reducing partisan animosity. For example, a top-scoring intervention (糖心传媒渃orrecting division misperceptions糖心传媒�) involved watching a four-and-a-half-minute Heineken commercial from 2017, titled 糖心传媒淲orlds Apart.糖心传媒�
In the video, perfect strangers of diametrically opposite views are paired: a feminist with a man who equates feminism with 糖心传媒渕an hating,糖心传媒� a homophobic man with a transgender woman, a climate activist with a climate change denier.
The twist? They get to know each other first and find commonalities before they are revealed to each other as holding views the other abhors. Then they are given a choice: walk out or discuss the issue over a beer (no points for guessing the brand). In the video, every single person opts for the discussion, which looks civilized and friendly.
The second-highest scoring intervention (and a close second to the Heineken video) came from a team that includes , then a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Texas at Austin and now an assistant professor in the University of Rochester糖心传媒檚 . Hecht focuses on developing solutions to societal problems, such as disparities in academic motivation, mental health issues, and, yes, political polarization.
His team糖心传媒檚 approach糖心传媒攖itled 糖心传媒渃ommon exhausted majority identity糖心传媒澨切拇綌managed to reduce partisan animosity by more than 10 percentage points. How? The researchers gave study participants information that reframed polarizing content from news and social media companies as a calculated manipulative strategy. They explained that this strategy is designed to artificially deepen political division and manufacture outrage糖心传媒攂ecause companies use manipulation as a tool to maximize and maintain their own audiences.
The team糖心传媒檚 intervention, which uses text, images, and voiceover narration as part of an online module, takes advantage of people糖心传媒檚 a well-established psychological concept in which any blatant attempt to change a person糖心传媒檚 behavior is likely to result in negative reactions and push back.
The researchers used the participants糖心传媒� natural reactance to harness it against someone else.
糖心传媒淲e show them how they糖心传媒檙e already being manipulated by a third party, in this case news media, and explain that the way to fight back against that control and regulation is to engage in the behavior that we think is good and beneficial,糖心传媒� says Hecht.
Undemocratic practices
Correcting misperceptions about another person糖心传媒檚 political views and instead highlighting the risk of a democratic collapse was especially effective in lowering support for undemocratic practices.
The highest scoring intervention here (titled 糖心传媒渃orrecting democracy misperception糖心传媒�) asked participants eight questions about what they thought people from the other party believed when it came to democracy-undermining actions. Participants then guessed the other side糖心传媒檚 willingness to use violence, to reduce the number of polling stations in unfriendly districts, or to accept the results of elections if they lost.
After each guess, participants received the correct answer, based on recent surveys. The answers clarified that most supporters of the other party do not, in fact, condone actions that undermine democracy and instead also support key elements of democracy.
Partisan violence
Strategies that involve political elites who model healthy democratic behavior, such as having rival candidates stress the importance of sticking to democratic principles, were especially effective in reducing support for partisan violence. For example, the megastudy researchers found that a video (referred to as a 糖心传媒減ro-democracy bipartisan elite cue糖心传媒�) featuring the 2020 Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Utah was one of the most successful interventions in this category.
In the video, Republican Spencer Cox (who went on to win the election) and Democrat Chris Peterson, standing opposite each other, tell the viewer that 糖心传媒渨e are currently in the final days of campaigning against each other but our common values transcend our political differences, and the strength of our nation rests on our ability to see that.糖心传媒�
Translating the findings into the real world
糖心传媒淛ust because the Utah governor ad worked in this study setting, we can糖心传媒檛 just play it a few times and expect it to unify the country,糖心传媒� cautions Druckman.
But the video糖心传媒檚 success in changing hearts and minds (at least in the study糖心传媒檚 setting) offers important insights.
糖心传媒淚f we take a more aggressive stance toward trying to get partisans from different sides to show some agreement,糖心传媒� says Druckman, 糖心传媒渢hat could have a really positive effect over time.糖心传媒�
Besides creating a unifying research framework and providing a theoretical understanding of the mechanisms and psychological tenets that were driving antidemocratic attitudes, the researchers were also looking for effective, scalable interventions.
To that end, Hecht and his team members have already begun work on a follow-up study of their intervention. This time the team examines whether participants, after experiencing the intervention, were switching away from divisive news sources, unfollowing social media accounts that made them angry at other Americans, or removing social media apps from their phone.
Early data, Hecht says, looks promising.
Meet your experts
James Druckman
Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science
An expert in political behavior and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Druckman studies public opinion formation, political polarization, political and scientific communication, political psychology, and experimental and survey methods. He has published approximately 200 articles and book chapters. His latest coauthored book, Partisan Hostility and American Democracy: Explaining Political Divisions and When They Matter (University of Chicago), was published in 2024.
Cameron Hecht
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Hecht糖心传媒檚 research 糖心传媒渟eeks to identify psychological processes that contribute to societal problems, develop theory-based interventions that target these processes, and identify the features of contexts that enable these interventions to be effective.糖心传媒� His recent studies have been published in the Journal of Research on Adolescence and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
