A Field Experiment Examining Different Types of Civil Discourse Interventions

• In Event: Communication, Engagement, and Political Participation

Abstract

Interpersonal discussion and deliberation are key components of a democratic society, in part because they can foster just laws and responsible institutions. However, the American public has become more and more polarized along partisan lines. These stark differences—-and perceptions of out-groups—-can result in the public prioritizing party affiliation over democracy, disincentivizing compromise, and becoming less tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
Polls indicate that a majority of U.S. adults believe that college campuses are heading in the wrong direction, because students are seldomly exposed to opposing viewpoints. This sentiment is shared by incoming and current college students, as data from the most recent Campus Expression Survey highlights that over 60% of students feel discouraged about expressing their beliefs. The current study aims to address the trend of polarization on college campuses by examining the effects of discussion-based interventions. We also look at how psychological factors like intellectual humility and open-minded cognition may play a role in these interventions on future political discussion and participation among college students.
Recruiting participants from a large mid-Atlantic university resulted in a total sample size of 606 participants divided across three conditions: a longer moderated discussion about American values and ideals, with n = 99; a shorter impromptu conversation, n = 326; and a control condition with no intervention, n = 181. Multivariate ANOVA tests revealed a significant overall effect of condition for both dependent variables: 1) intention to discuss politics both with people who agree with you or disagree with you, and 2) intended political participation.
Post-hoc tests demonstrated that students in the longer moderated discussions scored significantly higher on intentions to engage in future political discussion compared with the other conditions. There was no significant difference between those in the Convo condition and those in the control condition on intended political discussion. A similar result was obtained in a MANOVA examining the effect of condition on intended political participation.
In examining the effects of the role of psychological variables, we saw significant patterns emerge for intellectual curiosity, humility, and open-minded cognition on intended political discussion for those in the Engage condition. Perspective-taking was not significantly different.
Regarding political participation, intellectual humility was significantly higher in the Engage condition compared with both the Convo and Control conditions, however curiosity was not significantly different across the conditions in the case of participation. Similar to discussion, open-minded cognition was significantly higher in the Engage condition compared to the Convo and Control conditions, but perspective-taking was not different.
A regression model included political discussion as the dependent variable and a second model featured political participation as the dependent variable, with demographics, psychological variables, and the condition. The Engage condition did predict political participation and intention to participate in political discussions, above and beyond other variables. Participants that were exposed to the Engage conversations were more likely to express increased interest in engaging in political discussion and behaviors than those in the shorter conversations and control group. The demographic variables accounted for 11% of the variance in the model predicting intent to engage in political discussion, and 14% in the model predicting political participation. Adding the personality variables significantly increased the variance accounted for in each analysis: by 14% and 4%, respectively. As for our experimental intervention, it increased the variance accounted for in intended discussion by 1% and for participation by 5%.
Overall, these results bolster evidence suggesting that civil-discourse interventions that trigger certain psychological traits can deter individuals from seeking out political echo chambers, and encourage them to participate; but this is only true for certain segments of the students who participated. This research has shown that interventions introducing new information in environments that foster empathy and humanization may influence attitudes across the political spectrum.
Limitations, additional future research directions and implications for institutions of higher education are discussed.

Author

• Lindsay Hoffman, University of Delaware