Shared values may soften views after hearing political opponents

Americans may be more open to hearing political opponents than common talk about echo chambers suggests, according to new economics research from Cornell University. The study found that emphasizing shared values did not make people much more likely to listen, but it did make some listeners more likely to move away from the most polarized positions.

The research, published in The Economic Journal, examined whether people would voluntarily hear from someone who disagreed with them on abortion, gun laws or immigration. Cornell said the work was led by Michèle Belot, a professor in the university’s Department of Economics, with co-author Guglielmo Briscese, formerly of the University of Chicago and now at Vanguard.

How the experiment worked

According to Cornell, the main experiment used a representative sample of about 2,500 Americans. Participants first gave their views on the three contested issues, using a 1-to-10 scale.

They were then offered the chance to listen to as many as three short audio clips from a separate survey. Each recording featured a person who held the opposite view on one of the issues, based on the same scale, Cornell said.

Belot said the researchers made clear that listening was optional, because they wanted the setup to resemble everyday media choices, where people can avoid outlets or views they do not want to hear. Cornell said the study included a control group and two groups in which participants were told they shared some beliefs with the person on the recording.

One group learned that the speaker agreed with them on selected statements from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as the right to peaceful assembly and association. Another group learned that the speaker shared basic etiquette norms, including saying “please” and “thank you,” arriving on time and waiting one’s turn, according to Cornell.

What researchers found

Cornell said nearly 70% of participants listened to all three recordings, while 18% listened to two. A follow-up experiment that put greater stress on the voluntary nature of listening produced lower listening rates, but the authors still described engagement as relatively high.

The shared-values prompts did not significantly change whether people chose to listen, according to the study. The effect appeared after listening: compared with the control group, people who had been told they shared values or etiquette standards with the speaker were more likely to adjust their views.

About 10% of those participants shifted to a less extreme position on abortion and immigration, Cornell said. The same pattern did not appear on gun laws, which the researchers identified as the least divisive of the three issues studied.

Belot said the changes were modest, with views moving somewhat closer to the middle. She also said shared values are not a cure-all, but the evidence suggests people may be more willing to reconsider when they know an opponent shares some basic commitments.

Why it matters for polarization work

The study builds on research into echo chambers, social media and the “contact hypothesis,” which holds that common ground can reduce bias between groups, Cornell said. Belot and Briscese focused on whether people would choose to engage when no one required them to do so.

The researchers suggested that curiosity and the desire to sharpen one’s own thinking may help explain why many participants listened. Belot said the findings could inform organizations that try to reduce polarization, including Braver Angels and StoryCorps’ One Small Step.

According to Cornell, the study’s broader implication is that shared beliefs that receive less attention in political campaigns and media debates may still matter in political conversation. Belot said people who strongly disagree on one issue may still have many points of agreement that are easy to miss.

This story draws on original reporting from Phys.org.