Narrative Breach and Affective Polarization in a Moralized Policy Domain: Experimental Evidence from the Swiss Animal Testing Debates

Affective polarization threatens democratic cohesion and deliberation, but the phenomenon has been studied mainly in partisan contexts. This study examines whether breaching narratives, as defined by the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), can reduce affective polarization in Swiss policy debates on research with animals, a highly moralized issue involving stable opposing camps that has been repeatedly activated through direct-democratic popular initiatives. Drawing on the NPF, it argues that dominant narratives sustain polarization by reinforcing moral binaries and stereotypical character portrayals, whereas breaching narratives that subvert audience expectations may introduce moral complexity and perceived common ground, thereby attenuating negative evaluations of opponents. The study further expects weaker effects among researchers involved in animal experimentation due to high issue involvement and knowledge. A preregistered bilingual (German/French) survey experiment randomly assigns Swiss citizens and researchers involved in animal experimentation fields to breaching or conventional pro- and anti-testing narratives vignettes. Affective polarization is measured via feeling thermometers and trait ratings toward in- and out-group narrators. The project clarifies narrative breach and links NPF mechanisms to polarization reduction beyond partisan settings.