Seeking Solutions to Polarization: The United States in Comparative Perspective

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

The 2016 US presidential election inspired a flurry of studies of affective or social polarization, theorizing both the sources of it and its consequences for democracy. This polarization is not imagined; a recent paper by Boxell, Gentzkow, and Shapiro (2020) finds that the United States had the largest increase in affective polarization over the past 40 years when compared with other OECD countries (Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Britain, Norway, Sweden, and (West) Germany). We see this polarization in all aspects of politics, including the use of Us vs. Them rhetoric, the strengthening of tribal tendencies, and the perceptions of the “out-group” as an existential threat. An imperative question is thus, can we mitigate the negative consequences of these kinds of political tribalism to make democracies more resilient?
Instead of continuing to chart the progress of the problem, this panel brings together some of the latest research on depolarizing efforts in the United States. In many cases, the research draws on research from other parts of the world to inform the U.S. case. Although the papers engage with relevant social science theories and use rigorous empirical methods, each has policy implications that are grounded in real-world efforts to depolarize voters through experiments and actual programs. One field experiment, America in One Room, shows that deliberation exercises can dramatically moderate people’s policy positions and that public opinion does not have to be entrenched in polarized partisanship. Another experiment shows that affective polarization can be reduced through perspective-taking techniques and recategorizing identity to a superordinate one of common humanity. Besides experiments, we look at how dozens of non-profit organizations around the country are trying different programs to “bridge the divide” or “depolarize citizens.” Although these programs are inspired by scholarly research on conflict resolution and prejudice reduction, few have had their impact rigorously evaluated. We provide a survey of the depolarization efforts in the United States, as well as a specific analysis of one popular depolarization program. In effect, through these research projects, we explore what works, what doesn’t, and why.

Boxell, Levi, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse M Shapiro. 2020. “Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization.” https://www.brown.edu/Research/Shapiro/pdfs/cross-polar.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2020.

Sub Unit

• Division 44: Democracy and Autocracy

Individual Presentations

• Is Deliberation an Antidote to Polarization? Reflections on America in One Room - James S. Fishkin, Stanford University; Larry Diamond, Stanford University; Alice Siu, Stanford University; Norman Bradburn, University of Chicago

• Counseling Psychology and Polarization: Assessing the Better Angels Workshops - Eliza Tanner Hawkins, Brigham Young University; Joshua Ronald Gubler, Brigham Young University; Kirk A. Hawkins, Brigham Young University; Christopher F. Karpowitz, Brigham Young University

• Reducing Affective Polarization through Common Humanity and Perspective-Taking - Jennifer McCoy, Georgia State University; Levente Littvay, Central European University Foundation; Gabor Simonovits, New York University

Chair

• Kirk A. Hawkins Brigham Young University

Discussant

• Katherine J Cramer University of Wisconsin, Madison