Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity

Abstract

Rising partisan animosity is associated with a reduction in support for democracy and an increase in support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework to capture three levels of intervention—thoughts (correcting misconceptions and highlighting commonalities), relationships (building dialogue skills and fostering positive contact) and institutions (changing public discourse and transforming political structures)—and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects and real-world interventions led by practitioners in non-profit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Six themes of interventions for reducing partisan animosity.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 129–146 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abramowitz, A. & Saunders, K. Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. Forum 3, 1–22 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell, J. E. Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).

  4. Fiorina, M. P. & Abrams, S. J. Political polarization in the American public. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 563–588 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bavel, J. J. V. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 460–471 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J. B. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 28–38 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Duca, J. V. & Saving, J. L. Income inequality and political polarization: time series evidence over nine decades. Rev. Income Wealth 62, 445–466 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Houston, D. M. Polarization and the politics of education: what moves partisan opinion? KEDI J. Educ. Policy 35, 566–589 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kingzette, J. et al. How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opin. Q. 85, 663–677 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kalmoe, N. P. & Mason, L. Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2022).

  11. Moore-Berg, S. L., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 199–204 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heltzel, G. & Laurin, K. Polarization in America: two possible futures. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 179–184 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bail, C. A. et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9216–9221 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Huddy, L. & Yair, O. Reducing affective polarization: warm group relations or policy compromise? Polit. Psychol. 42, 291–309 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jahani, E. et al. Exposure to common enemies can increase political polarization: evidence from a cooperation experiment with automated partisans. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/x2dby (2020).

  18. Kubin, E., Puryear, C., Schein, C. & Gray, K. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2008389118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Levendusky, M. S. Americans, not partisans: can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? J. Polit. 80, 59–70 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Levendusky, M. S. When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opin. Q. 82, 583–592 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reininger, K. M., Krott, N. R., Hoenisch, M., Scheunemann, J. & Moritz, S. Targeting our blind spot: a metacognitive intervention ameliorates negative feelings, evaluations, and stereotypes towards conservatives in a liberal sample. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 8, 453–472 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stancato, D. M. & Keltner, D. Awe, ideological conviction, and perceptions of ideological opponents. Emotion 21, 61–72 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stanley, M. L., Whitehead, P. S., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. & Seli, P. Exposure to opposing reasons reduces negative impressions of ideological opponents. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 91, 104030 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Warner, B. R., Horstman, H. K. & Kearney, C. C. Reducing political polarization through narrative writing. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 48, 459–477 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Warner, B. R. & Villamil, A. A test of imagined contact as a means to improve cross-partisan feelings and reduce attribution of malevolence and acceptance of political violence. Commun. Monogr. 84, 447–465 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wojcieszak, M. & Warner, B. R. Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Polit. Commun. 37, 789–811 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zoizner, A., Shenhav, S. R., Fogel-Dror, Y. & Sheafer, T. Strategy news is good news: how journalistic coverage of politics reduces affective polarization. Polit. Commun. 38, 604–623 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1369–1380 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Carothers, T. & O’Donohue, A. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization (Brookings Institution Press, 2019).

  31. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization Working Paper 26669 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26669 (NBER, 2021).

  32. Abramowitz, A. I. & Saunders, K. L. Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: social identity vs. ideology. Polit. Res. Q. 59, 175–187 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mason, L. ‘I disrespectfully agree’: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 128–145 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lupia, A. Uninformed: Why People Seem to Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).

  35. Toward a more responsible two-party system: a report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 44, 1–99 (1950).

  36. Rudolph, T. J. & Hetherington, M. J. Affective polarization in political and nonpolitical settings. Int. J. Public Opin. 33, 591–606 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Amira, K., Wright, J. C. & Goya-Tocchetto, D. In-group love versus out-group hate: which is more important to partisans and when? Polit. Behav. 43, 473–494 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y. & Ryan, J. B. Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opin. Q. 82, 379–390 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sunstein, C. R. Partyism. Univ. Chic. Leg. Forum 2015, 1–27 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Crawford, J. T. & Pilanski, J. M. Political intolerance, right and left. Polit. Psychol. 35, 841–851 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. J. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 690–707 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Druckman, J. N. & Levendusky, M. S. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opin. Q. 83, 114–122 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Skytte, R. Dimensions of elite partisan polarization: disentangling the effects of incivility and issue polarization. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 1457–1475 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McCoy, J. & Somer, M. Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: comparative evidence and possible remedies. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 681, 234–271 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Broockman, D., Kalla, J. & Westwood, S. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12719 (2022).

  46. Voelkel, J. G. et al. Interventions reducing affective polarization do not improve anti-democratic attitudes. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7evmp (2021).

  47. Pasek, M., Karlinsky, L.-O. A., Levy-Vene, A. & Moore-Berg, S. Biased and inaccurate meta-perceptions about out-partisans’ support for democratic principles may erode democratic norms. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qjy6t (2021).

  48. Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14864–14872 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jones, D. R. Party polarization and legislative gridlock. Polit. Res. Q. 54, 125–141 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. In Changing U.S. Electorate, Race and Education Remain Stark Dividing Lines https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/ (Pew Research Center, 2020).

  52. Westwood, S. J. & Peterson, E. The inseparability of race and partisanship in the United States. Polit. Behav. 44, 1125–1147 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T. & Wetherell, G. The ideological-conflict hypothesis: intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 27–34 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wetherell, G. A., Br, M. J. & Reyna, C. Discrimination across the ideological divide: the role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 4, 658–667 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Crawford, J. T. & Brandt, M. J. Ideological (a)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 40–45 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Briscoe, F. & Joshi, A. Bringing the boss’s politics in: supervisor political ideology and the gender gap in earnings. Acad. Manage. J. 60, 1415–1441 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Eastwick, P. W., Richeson, J. A., Son, D. & Finkel, E. J. Is love colorblind? Political orientation and interracial romantic desire. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35, 1258–1268 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Chen, M. K. & Rohla, R. The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science 360, 1020–1024 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., Liu, M. L. & Nam, J. S. Can friendships be bipartisan? The effects of political ideology on peer relationships. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 14, 819–834 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Brown, J. R. & Enos, R. D. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 998–1008 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Enders, A. M. & Armaly, M. T. The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Polit. Behav. 41, 815–839 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee, A. H.-Y. Social trust in polarized times: how perceptions of political polarization affect Americans’ trust in each other. Polit. Behav. 1–22 (2022).

  63. McConnell, W. A. Political polarization is a good thing. Harvard Crimson (23 April 2021).

  64. Yudkin, D., Hawkins, S. & Dixon, T. The perception gap: how false impressions are pulling Americans apart. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r3h5q (2019).

  65. Ahler, D. J. Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. J. Polit. 76, 607–620 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mernyk, J., Pink, S., Druckman, J. & Willer, R. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans' support for partisan violence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2116851119 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Rollwage, M., Zmigrod, L., de-Wit, L., Dolan, R. J. & Fleming, S. M. What underlies political polarization? A manifesto for computational political psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 820–822 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zmigrod, L. The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 34–39 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Mason, L. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (Univ. Chicago Press, 2018).

  70. Berry, J. M. & Sobieraj, S. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

  71. Bail, C. A. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing (Princeton Univ. Press, 2021).

  72. Kubin, E. & von Sikorski, C. The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 45, 188–206 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Parker, V. A., Feinberg, M., Tullett, A. & Wilson, A. E. The ties that blind: misperceptions of the opponent fringe and the miscalibration of political contempt. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cr23g (2021).

  74. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Digital media and democracy: a systematic review of causal and correlational evidence worldwide. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/p3z9v (2021).

  75. Rathje, S., Bavel, J. J. V. & van der Linden, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024292118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Nordbrandt, M. Affective polarization in the digital age: testing the direction of the relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties. New Media Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211044393 (2021).

  77. Casas, A., Menchen-Trevino, E. & Wojcieszak, M. Exposure to extremely partisan news from the other political side shows scarce boomerang effects. Polit. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9 (2022).

  78. Lang, C. & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. Partisan sorting in the United States, 1972–2012: new evidence from a dynamic analysis. Polit. Geogr. 48, 119–129 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Mummolo, J. & Nall, C. Why partisans do not sort: the constraints on political segregation. J. Polit. 79, 45–59 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Abrams, S. J. & Fiorina, M. P. ‘The big sort’ that wasn’t: a skeptical reexamination. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 45, 203–210 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G. A. & Martí, I. Social innovation: integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Bus. Soc. 58, 887–918 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R. & Judd, C. M. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 145–158 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A. & Haidt, J. The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE 7, e50092 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Cassese, E. C. Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Polit. Behav. 43, 29–50 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Martherus, J. L., Martinez, A. G., Piff, P. K. & Theodoridis, A. G. Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Polit. Behav. 43, 517–540 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A. & Rogers, T. Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition 188, 98–107 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Peters, U. How (many) descriptive claims about political polarization exacerbate polarization. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 9, 24–36 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A. & Feinberg, M. Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 223–228 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Ecker, U. K. H. & Ang, L. C. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Polit. Psychol. 40, 241–260 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Stanley, M. L., Sinclair, A. H. & Seli, P. Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents. J. Pers. 88, 1196–1216 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Hagmann, D., Minson, J. & Tinsley, C. Personal narratives build trust across ideological divides. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sw7nz (2020).

  92. Kalla, J. & Broockman, D. Voter outreach campaigns can reduce affective polarization among implementing political activists. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000132 (2022).

  93. Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R. & Sloman, S. A. Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychol. Sci. 24, 939–946 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Crawford, J. T. & Ruscio, J. Asking people to explain complex policies does not increase political moderation: three preregistered failures to closely replicate Fernbach, Rogers, Fox, and Sloman’s (2013) findings.Psychol. Sci. 32, 611–621 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kaufman, R. R. & Haggard, S. Democratic decline in the United States: what can we learn from middle-income backsliding? Perspect. Polit. 17, 417–432 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Easton, M. J. & Holbein, J. B. The democracy of dating: how political affiliations shape relationship formation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 8, 260–272 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Huber, G. A. & Malhotra, N. Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior. J. Polit. 79, 269–283 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Praet, S., Guess, A. M., Tucker, J. A., Bonneau, R. & Nagler, J. What's not to like? Facebook page likes reveal limited polarization in lifestyle preferences. Polit. Commun. 39, 311–338 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Hetherington, M. & Weiler, J. Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018).

  100. Denning, K. R. & Hodges, S. D. When polarization triggers out-group ‘counter-projection’ across the political divide. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 48, 638–656 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Sherman, D. K., Brookfield, J. & Ortosky, L. Intergroup conflict and barriers to common ground: a self-affirmation perspective. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 11, e12364 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A. & Dovidio, J. F. Reducing intergroup bias: the benefits of recategorization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 239–249 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. in Organizational Identity: A Reader (eds. Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M.) 56-65 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).

  104. Sherif, M. Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. Am. J. Sociol. 63, 349–356 (1958).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., McDonald, S. A. & Lamoreaux, M. J. Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13, 403–423 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Brandt, M. J. & Turner-Zwinkels, F. M. No additional evidence that proximity to the July 4th holiday affects affective polarization. Collabra Psychol. 6, 39 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. & McGarty, C. Self and collective: cognition and social context. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 454–463 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Enten, H. The NFL is the rare thing that brings all Americans—Democrats and Republicans—together. CNN (23 January 2022).

  109. Putnam, R. D., Campbell, D. E. & Garrett, S. R. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (Simon and Schuster, 2012).

  110. Piper, A. & So, R. J. Study shows books can bring Republicans and Democrats together. Guardian (12 October 2016).

  111. Balietti, S., Getoor, L., Goldstein, D. G. & Watts, D. J. Reducing opinion polarization: effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e21125521198 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Rogowski, J. C. & Sutherland, J. L. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Polit. Behav. 38, 485–508 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley, 1954).

  114. Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact (Psychology Press, 2011).

  115. Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 751–783 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Bagci, S. C., Piyale, Z. E., Bircek, N. I. & Ebcim, E. Think beyond contact: reformulating imagined intergroup contact theory by adding friendship potential. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21, 1034–1052 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Baron, H. et al. Can Americans depolarize? Assessing the effects of reciprocal group reflection on partisan polarization. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3x7z8 (2021).

  118. Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F. & Gino, F. Conversational receptiveness: improving engagement with opposing views. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 160, 131–148 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Puryear, C. & Gray, K. Using ‘balanced pragmatism’ in political discussions increases cross-partisan respect. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhpdt (2021).

  120. Levendusky, M. S. & Stecula, D. A. We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  121. Settle, J. E. & Carlson, T. N. Opting out of political discussions. Polit. Commun. 36, 476–496 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Carlson, T. N., McClean, C. T. & Settle, J. E. Follow your heart: could psychophysiology be associated with political discussion network homogeneity? Polit. Psychol. 41, 165–187 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Mutz, D. C. The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 838–855 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Carpenter, J., Brady, W., Crockett, M., Weber, R. & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. Political polarization and moral outrage on social media. Conn. Law Rev. 52, 1106–1120 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  125. Graham, J., & Yudkin, D. A. in The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (eds. Vargas, M. & Doris, J. M.) 759–778 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).

  126. Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective-getting. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12657 (2022).

  127. Voelkel, J. G., Ren, D. & Brandt, M. J. Inclusion reduces political prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 95, 104149 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Tuller, H. M., Bryan, C. J., Heyman, G. D. & Christenfeld, N. J. S. Seeing the other side: perspective taking and the moderation of extremity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 59, 18–23 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Abeywickrama, R. S., Rhee, J. J., Crone, D. L. & Laham, S. M. Why moral advocacy leads to polarization and proselytization: the role of self-persuasion. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 8, 2195–3325 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  130. Iyengar, S., Konitzer, T. & Tedin, K. The home as a political fortress: family agreement in an era of polarization. J. Polit. 80, 1326–1338 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Bishop, B. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009).

  132. McDonald, I. Migration and sorting in the American electorate: evidence from the 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Am. Polit. Res. 39, 512–533 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G. & Hui, I. Voter migration and the geographic sorting of the American electorate. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103, 856–870 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  134. Gimpel, J. G. & Hui, I. Seeking politically compatible neighbors? The role of neighborhood partisan composition in residential sorting. Polit. Geogr. 48, 130–142 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Kinsella, C. J., Mctague, C. & Raleigh, K. Closely and deeply divided: purple counties in the 2016 presidential election. Appl. Geogr. 127, 102386 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Kubota, J. T., Peiso, J., Marcum, K. & Cloutier, J. Intergroup contact throughout the lifespan modulates implicit racial biases across perceivers’ racial group. PLoS ONE 12, e0180440 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Lemmer, G. & Wagner, U. Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45, 152–168 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Hewstone, M. & Schmid, K. Neighbourhood ethnic diversity and orientations toward Muslims in Britain: the role of intergroup contact. Polit. Q. 85, 320–325 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. MacInnis, C. C., Page-Gould, E. & Hodson, G. Multilevel intergroup contact and antigay prejudice (explicit and implicit): evidence of contextual contact benefits in a less visible group domain. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 8, 243–251 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L. & Bradburn, N. Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on ‘America in one room’. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115, 1464–1481 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Manbeck, K. E. et al. Improving relations among conservatives and liberals on a college campus: a preliminary trial of a contextual-behavioral intervention. J. Contextual Behav. Sci. 10, 120–125 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. & Reno, R. R. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed. Zanna, M. P.) Vol. 24, 201–234 (Academic, 1991).

  143. Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J. & Bavel, J. J. V. The MAD model of moral contagion: the role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Psychol. Sci. 15, 978–1010 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  144. Banks, A., Calvo, E., Karol, D. & Telhami, S. #Polarizedfeeds: three experiments on polarization, framing, and social media. Int. J. Press Polit. 26, 609–634 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2521–2526 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Harel, T. O., Jameson, J. K. & Maoz, I. The normalization of hatred: identity, affective polarization, and dehumanization on Facebook in the context of intractable political conflict. Soc. Media Soc. 6, 2056305120913983 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  147. Lima, C. A whistleblower’s power: key takeaways from the Facebook Papers. Washington Post (26 October 2021).

  148. Iyengar, S. & Massey, D. S. Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7656–7661 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Frimer, J. et al. Incivility is rising among American politicians on Twitter. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221083811 (2022).

  150. Zingher, J. N. & Flynn, M. E. From on high: the effect of elite polarization on mass attitudes and behaviors, 1972–2012. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 48, 23–45 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Banda, K. K. & Cluverius, J. Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Elect. Stud. 56, 90–101 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S. & Gentzkow, M. The welfare effects of social media. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 629–676 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Galvin, D. J. Party domination and base mobilization: Donald Trump and Republican Party building in a polarized era. Forum 18, 135–168 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Levendusky, M. Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Polit. Commun. 30, 565–581 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Levendusky, M. & Malhotra, N. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Polit. Commun. 33, 283–301 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Parker, K., Morin, R. & Horowitz, J. M. Public Sees America’s Future in Decline on Many Fronts https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/03/21/public-sees-an-america-in-decline-on-many-fronts/ (Pew Research Center, 2019).

  157. Mortensen, C. R. et al. Trending norms: a lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10, 201–210 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Levendusky, M. S. & Malhotra, N. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80, 378–391 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Wojcieszak, M., Winter, S. & Yu, X. Social norms and selectivity: effects of norms of open-mindedness on content selection and affective polarization. Mass Commun. Soc. 23, 455–483 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Persily, N. Solutions to Political Polarization in America (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  161. Klein, E. Why We’re Polarized (Simon and Schuster, 2020).

  162. Norrander, B. & Wendland, J. Open versus closed primaries and the ideological composition of presidential primary electorates. Elect. Stud. 42, 229–236 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Ahler, D. J., Citrin, J. & Lenz, G. S. Do open primaries improve representation? An experimental test of California’s 2012 top-two primary. Legis. Stud. Q. 41, 237–268 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Vliet, L. V., Tornberg, P. & Uitermark, J. Political systems and political networks: the structure of parliamentarians’ retweet networks in 19 countries. Int. J. Commun. 15, 2156–2176 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  165. Drutman, L. Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

  166. Duverger, M. Party Politics and Pressure Groups: A Comparative Introduction (Crowell, 1972).

  167. Grose, C. R. Reducing legislative polarization: top-two and open primaries are associated with more moderate legislators. J. Polit. Econ. 1, 267–287 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  168. Nunan, R. in Democracy, Populism, and Truth (eds Navin, M. C. & Nunan, R.) 145–160 (Springer, 2020).

  169. Fischer, S., Lee, A. & Lelkes, Y. Electoral systems and political attitudes: experimental evidence. SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3803603 (2021).

  170. Barber, M. J. Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of American legislatures. J. Polit. 78, 296–310 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Mollen, S., Engelen, S., Kessels, L. T. E. & van den Putte, B. Short and sweet: the persuasive effects of message framing and temporal context in antismoking warning labels. J. Health Commun. 22, 20–28 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion Revised Ed. (Harper Business, 2006).

  173. Pressgrove, G., McKeever, B. W. & Jang, S. M. What is contagious? Exploring why content goes viral on Twitter: a case study of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 23, e1586 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Tavernise, S. & Cohn, N. The America that isn’t polarized. New York Times (24 September 2019).

  175. Rogers, T., Milkman, K. L. & Volpp, K. G. Commitment devices: using initiatives to change behavior. JAMA 311, 2065–2066 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Sheeran, P., Webb, T. L. & Gollwitzer, P. M. The interplay between goal intentions and implementation intentions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 87–98 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Han, H., McKenna, E. & Oyakawa, M. Prisms of the People (Univ. Chicago Press, 2021).

  178. Han, H. How Organizations Develop Activists: Civic Associations and Leadership in the 21st Century (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

  179. Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S. & Green, D. P. Prejudice reduction: progress and challenges. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 533–560 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Cunha, F., Foorman, B. R. & Yeager, D. S. Persistence and fade-out of educational-intervention effects: mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 21, 55–97 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. DeVoge, S. & Varble, D. L. The joint use of experimental and cognitive learning in the classroom: teaching with personal relevance. Teach. Psychol. 3, 168–171 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Paul, S. Political perspectives are the main course at these dinner gatherings. NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/04/518182530/political-perspectives-are-the-main-course-at-these-dinner-gatherings (4 March 2017).

  183. Gjelten, T. Pastoring a purple church: ‘I absolutely bite my tongue sometimes’. NPR https://www.npr.org/2019/04/06/703356844/pastoring-a-purple-church-i-absolutely-bite-my-tongue-sometimes (6 April 2019).

  184. Walton, G. M. & Wilson, T. D. Wise interventions: psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychol. Rev. 125, 617–655 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Brehm, J. W. A Theory of Psychological Reactance (Academic, 1966).

  186. Milat, A. J., King, L., Bauman, A. E. & Redman, S. The concept of scalability: increasing the scale and potential adoption of health promotion interventions into policy and practice. Health Promot. Int. 28, 285–298 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Vincent, J. Twitter is bringing its ‘read before you retweet’ prompt to all users. Verge https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/25/21455635/twitter-read-before-you-tweet-article-prompt-rolling-out-globally-soon (25 September 2020).

  188. Simonsson, O., Narayanan, J. & Marks, J. Love thy (partisan) neighbor: brief befriending meditation reduces affective polarization. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 1577–1593 (2021).

  189. Sheeran, P., Klein, W. M. P. & Rothman, A. J. Health behavior change: moving from observation to intervention. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68, 573–600 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Moore-Berg, S. et al. Translating social science for peace: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. Peace Confl. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000604 (2022).

  191. Rothman, A. & Sheeran, P. The operating conditions framework: integrating mechanisms and moderators in health behavior interventions. Health Psychol. 40, 845–857 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Skitka, L. J. The psychology of moral conviction. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4, 267–281 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Kahan, D. M., Landrum, A., Carpenter, K., Helft, L. & Hall Jamieson, K. Science curiosity and political information processing. Polit. Psychol. 38, 179–199 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Halperin, E., Pliskin, R., Saguy, T., Liberman, V. & Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation and the cultivation of political tolerance: searching for a new track for intervention. J. Confl. Resolut. 58, 1110–1138 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Michelitch, K. & Utych, S. Electoral cycle fluctuations in partisanship: global evidence from eighty-six countries. J. Polit. 80, 412–427 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Anderson, C. A. Heat and violence. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 10, 33–38 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Bandura, A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol. Health 13, 623–649 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Wojcieszak, M. & Garrett, R. K. Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: how priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Hum. Commun. Res. 44, 247–273 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. Grimes, D. R., Bauch, C. T. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 171511 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  200. Spring, V. L., Cameron, C. D. & Cikara, M. The upside of outrage. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 1067–1069 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For funding, R.H., W.B., J.W. and K.G. thank the Charles Koch Foundation (via the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding), Acton Family Giving and the New Pluralists Initiative. H.H. also thanks the New Pluralist Initiative. The New Pluralist Initiative is funded by Acton Family Giving, the Stand Together Trust, Einhorn Collaborative, the Hewlett Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Klarman Family Foundation, the Lubetzky Family Foundation and the Fetzer Institute. R.W. thanks the Fetzer Foundation and the Civic Health Project. The funders had no role in the decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. For research assistance, we thank A. Annadurai, J. Thornton, A. Chukwudebe, M. Wong, A. Zhou and C. Madden.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Rachel Hartman or Kurt Gray.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks John Barry Ryan, Dominik Stecula and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartman, R., Blakey, W., Womick, J. et al. Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nat Hum Behav 6, 1194–1205 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01442-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01442-3

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing