Does Interpersonal Political Persuasion Drive Polarization?

• In Event: Media and Communication Paths to Depolarization

Abstract

Informal political conversations, both online and offline, are an important driver of public opinion and support for democratic norms. Political conversations in day-to-day life can expose people to political information and reinforcing or contradictory perspectives, with implications for how people understand political issues, tolerate disagreement, and support democratic exchanges and dialogue. While there is growing evidence that political dialogue across party lines can reduce affective polarization, little research evaluates how the specific conversational behaviors or roles adopted by the participants affect the conversational outcome.

One important dimension on which conversational participation can vary is whether the people involved in the conversation are actively trying to persuade others to change their opinion or preferred candidate. Trying to persuade someone else in a political conversation requires taking a particular position and defending it. This can create social costs for “backing down,” or activate other psychological defense mechanisms that might make it difficult for the persuader to yield ground or change their own position. Thus, it is possible that the set of people who take an actively persuasive role in a conversation become more polarized through discussions with people they disagree with, rather than meeting the ideal of reduced polarization through dialogue.

In this paper, I leverage original survey experimental data (from the 2023 CES) to evaluate the causal relationship between interpersonal political persuasion attempts and polarization. I hypothesize that persuasive behavior in a conversation is associated with increased polarization, and discuss the implications for efforts at depolarization that rely on unstructured interactions between people who disagree.

Author

• Lisa P. Argyle, Brigham Young University