Do Political Conversations Persuade or Polarize? Evidence from a Real-Time Randomized Experiment

An extensive literature demonstrates that individuals’ goals and motivations shape the way they process political information as well as the impact of the information people encounter on their political attitudes. While early research focused almost exclusively on how motivation affects the processing of information communicated by political elites and the media, recent work shows that the theoretical distinction between directional and accuracy motivation applies to interpersonal political communication as well. However, the consequences of each motivation for political attitudes remains unclear. To fill this gap, we designed an experiment that directly tests the causal effect of motivation on political attitudes in real-time conversations between individuals holding opposing political views. Our experiment manipulated directional and accuracy motivations by incentivizing people to either “win the debate” or learn as much as they can about their discussion partner’s perspective. A third control group held the conversation with no experimentally induced motivation. We then assessed how this manipulation influenced participants’ post-conversation attitudes, focusing on the extent to which people moved (1) toward their discussion partner’s attitude (i.e., persuasion) or (2) toward a more extreme stance in the direction of their initial attitude (i.e., polarization). Our findings highlight the significant influence of motivation on political conversation outcomes. Individuals with a partisan mindset, focused on winning debates, resist reconsidering their views and cling tightly to pre-conversation attitudes. Conversely, individuals with a learning-oriented mindset, viewing conversations as opportunities to understand others’ perspectives, demonstrate greater openness to alternative viewpoints and a higher likelihood of reconsidering their initial attitudes. Notably, there is no evidence at all that motivation affects attitude polarization. Our study makes four main contributions to the literature. First, we contribute to the growing body of research demonstrating that conversations between citizens – especially those that occur across lines of disagreement – are politically consequential, as they exert meaningful effects on people’s attitudes and evaluations. We show here that even a brief conversation with a stranger holding an opposing attitude can prompt individuals to change their political views. Second, we shed new light on the role of motivation in politics. Numerous previous studies have examined partisan-motivated responses to mass-mediated information communicated by political and media. Here, based on evidence from real-time political conversations between ordinary citizens holding opposing views, we establish that motivation also crucially determines the outcomes of these interpersonal interactions. Third, we examine the impact of partisan motivation on the “backlash effect” in political conversations. While prior research suggests partisan motivation triggers defensive reactions to counter-attitudinal information, reinforcing existing attitudes, we find no evidence supporting this in live conversations. A possible explanation is that the interactive nature of conversations fosters mutual understanding, reducing defensive responses common in mass media contexts. Finally, our findings can offer a basis for future interventions aimed at reducing political tensions and bringing partisans closer together. Interventions that promote an accuracy mindset in political conversations, implemented at scale and in real-world contexts, could help decrease mass polarization by encouraging individuals to consider – and even adopt – the other side’s perspective.