When a Republican and a Democrat sit down to discuss gun control, how is it going to go? Conversations between Republicans and Democrats can be either productive or polarizing and social scientists want to understand what makes conversations between people from competing social groups succeed, as positive conversations have proven to be one of the most effective ways to reduce intergroup conflict. However, when conversations go poorly, they can instead increase polarization and reinforce negative biases.
Researchers and practitioners have designed many interventions to help partisans see past their differences and engage in productive conversation, but have been met with challenges, as the effectiveness of interventions can depend on several factors including participants’ familiarity with the topic, demographic similarities, or their sense of common ground. To reliably predict how an intervention will perform, we also need to conduct a large number of experimental trials but this volume of experiments has historically been cost prohibitive due to their labor-intensive nature. As a result, most existing studies are small and focused on specific contexts, making it difficult to generalize findings across broader populations, topics, or demographic groups.
However, the widespread adoption of video conferencing as a part of everyday life has opened the door to larger-scale studies. With funding from the Templeton World Charity Foundation, the Computational Social Science Lab (CSSLab) has built an online platform called the “The Deliberation Lab,” led by CSSLab founder and director Duncan Watts and Post-doctoral Researcher James Houghton to automatically coordinate participants, facilitate discussions, and collect standardized data.
With this platform, we can conduct more experimental trials in one afternoon than traditional conversation studies can achieve in a year. This approach lets us systematically compare conversations across different populations, topics, and demographic mixes to better understand what makes conversations succeed or fail. And to support outside research teams in designing and implementing their own interventions and studies within the Deliberation Lab, we are developing a visual editor for experiment creation to make the experiment design process intuitive and accessible.
The first major study in this project will create a baseline map of conditions under which natural conversations succeed or fail without any interventions. In this study, 1000 Republicans will speak 1-on-1 with 1000 Democrats about topics such as needle exchange programs (high partisanship) or US military support for Israel (low partisanship, but still highly contentious). Then they will answer a series of questions about their experience in the conversation, their opinions of their discussion partner, and their willingness to return to the conversation. This baseline study will help us identify where cross-partisan discussions naturally succeed and where they need more support.
Building on this study, we are organizing a multi-lab collaboration with approximately 20 research groups globally to identify and test various interventions aimed at improving cross-partisan discussions. This approach allows us to build a comprehensive, cumulative dataset that not only supports the specific research at hand but also contributes to advancing the broader field of conversation and polarization studies.
We hope this collaboration will serve as a leading example of how open research can advance an entire field. By standardizing research methods and data collection procedures, the Deliberation Lab promotes the core values of open science—transparency and replicability. Additionally, we move beyond isolated studies and gain the ability to explore more complex dynamics with greater precision, ultimately broadening the scope and reliability of our research conclusions.
This new capability will enable us to support the crucial work of cross-partisan dialogue, aiding researchers who are committed to fostering a world where conversations across lines of difference are both positive and productive. By providing deeper insights and more reliable data, we can offer evidence-based strategies that enhance the effectiveness of these important dialogues, helping to bridge divides and promote meaningful, constructive exchanges.
The Templeton World Charity Foundation was founded by philanthropist Sir John Templeton in 1996. Its mission involves funding projects centered on the development of new tools and practices to advance scientific knowledge and improve human well-being. One of Sir Templeton’s guiding principles was to improve the accessibility of research which led to the Foundation’s prioritization of Open Research.
The CSSLab would like to thank the Templeton World Charity Foundation for their generous support in funding the Deliberation Lab project. Their commitment to open research allows us to study group conversations and develop evidence-based strategies that enhance the effectiveness of these important dialogues, helping to bridge divides and promote meaningful, constructive exchanges.
AUTHORS
DELPHINE GARDINER
–
Communications Specialist