Challenging Partisan Expectations Reduces Political Polarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15901v1
• Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2026 16:30:39 GMT
• Title: Challenging Partisan Expectations Reduces Political Polarization
• Abstract summary: Political conversations are often proposed as a remedy for political polarization, yet their effectiveness remains inconsistent.<n>We propose that conversations should reduce political polarization the most when they violate the expected link between partisan identity and issue position.<n>We find that expectation-challenging conversations in which participants talk with a disagreeing ingroup member or an agreeing outgroup member are effective in reducing affective and issue polarization.
• Score: 35.59059755791736
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Political conversations are often proposed as a remedy for political polarization, yet their effectiveness remains inconsistent. We argue that this inconsistency partly reflects a neglected feature of political contact: the expectations partisans bring to these encounters. We hypothesize that conversations should reduce political polarization the most when they violate the expected link between partisan identity and issue position. We test this hypothesis in a 2x2 experiment in which 1,983 U.S. adults engaged in structured conversations with an AI chatbot whose presented partisan identity and policy stance were independently manipulated. We find that expectation-challenging conversations in which participants talk with a disagreeing ingroup member or an agreeing outgroup member are effective in reducing affective and issue polarization. Although these effects emerge without meaningful shifts in participants' own policy positions, a follow-up survey shows that most effects disappear over one month. Interestingly, these conversations maintain or improve objective measures of deliberation but are experienced as less satisfying by participants. Our findings identify expectation violation as an underexplored depolarization mechanism. Our results also demonstrate the promises and limitations of how conversational AI can serve as a scalable method for experimentally studying interventions to mitigating partisan divides.

Related papers

• Synthetic Contact with AI Reduces Cross-Partisan Animosity [0.0]
  Americans' warmth toward members of the opposing political party has fallen sharply over the past three decades.<n>We test whether brief conversations with AI chatbots representing the political outgroup can substitute for the contact people shun.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T13:51:57Z)
• Divergent Paths to Depolarization: Dialogue Design Determines the Prosocial Benefits of AI-Assisted Political Argumentation [11.18468073756501]
  Argumentative dialogues across political divides can reduce polarization.<n>How the format of human-AI dialogues shapes their benefits remains unclear.<n>These findings highlight dialogue design as a key determinant of effective AI-mediated behavioral interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T17:51:10Z)
• Perceived Political Bias in LLMs Reduces Persuasive Abilities [0.0]
  We test whether credibility attacks reduce LLM-based persuasion.<n>A short message indicating that the LLM was biased against the respondent's party attenuated persuasion by 28%.<n>These findings suggest that the persuasive impact of conversational AI is politically contingent, constrained by perceptions of partisan alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T09:33:16Z)
• The Ideological Turing Test for Moderation of Outgroup Affective Animosity [3.9727752701702728]
  We introduce and test the Ideological Turing Test, a gamified framework requiring participants to adopt and defend opposing viewpoints.<n>We measured changes in affective animosity and ideological position immediately post-intervention and at 2-6 week follow-up.<n>For ideological position, adopting the opposite perspective led to significant immediate movement across modalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-13T05:19:45Z)
• Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
  We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
• Biased AI can Influence Political Decision-Making [64.9461133083473]
  This paper presents two experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in large language models (LLMs) on political opinions and decision-making.<n>We found that participants exposed to partisan biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions which matched the LLM's bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T22:56:00Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Unpacking polarization: Antagonism and Alignment in Signed Networks of Online Interaction [0.3581083356941628]
  In the 20th century, major fault lines were formed by structural conflicts, like owners vs workers, center vs periphery, etc. We present the FAULTANA pipeline, a computational method to uncover major fault lines in data of signed online interactions. Our method makes it possible to quantify the degree of antagonism prevalent in different online debates, as well as how aligned each debate is to the major fault line.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T05:57:48Z)
• Perspective-taking to Reduce Affective Polarization on Social Media [11.379010432760241]
  We deploy a randomized field experiment through a browser extension to 1,611 participants on Twitter. We find that simply exposing participants to "outgroup" feeds enhances engagement, but not an understanding of why others hold their political views. framing the experience in familiar, empathic terms by prompting participants to recall a disagreement does not affect engagement, but does increase their ability to understand opposing views.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-11T20:25:10Z)
• Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: Visual Communication of Uncertainty in Election Polls [56.8172499765118]
  We discuss potential sources of bias in nowcasting and forecasting. Concepts are presented to attenuate the issue of falsely perceived accuracy. One key idea is the use of Probabilities of Events instead of party shares.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-28T07:02:24Z)
• M2P2: Multimodal Persuasion Prediction using Adaptive Fusion [65.04045695380333]
  This paper solves two problems: the Debate Outcome Prediction (DOP) problem predicts who wins a debate and the Intensity of Persuasion Prediction (IPP) problem predicts the change in the number of votes before and after a speaker speaks. Our M2P2 framework is the first to use multimodal (acoustic, visual, language) data to solve the IPP problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-03T18:47:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.