Arguing about Immigration: Exploring the (Un)common Grounds with Open Questions

• In Event: How to Reduce Polarization

Abstract

The ability to articulate compelling arguments against one’s own view on political issues is often seen as a sign of democratic competency. It demonstrates a willingness to question one’s own beliefs and indicates thoroughgoing understanding of alternative ways of thinking. Previous research suggests that this in turn inspires tolerance of disagreement and respect for ideological opponents. However, awareness of compelling counter arguments is unlikely to shape feelings towards opponents if it is believed that they lack the moral or epistemic qualities to recognize those arguments themselves. This paper uses a survey experiment with open-ended questions (fielded in Norway, N = 2007) to compare the best argument people can think of against their own view on immigration, with the arguments they attribute to opponents. Both are in turn compared with the opposition's own arguments. Although most respondents see compelling arguments on the other side, few attribute compelling arguments to their opponents. Interestingly, the arguments formulated by respondents asked to write the best possible argument for the other side were much more similar in content to the opposition’s own, than those attributed to them. This suggests that the respondents overestimate the differences between themselves and their interlocutors, and underestimate the potential for mutual understanding.

Author

• Soran Hajo Dahl, University of Bergen