Fact-based conversations: Bridging political divides

As the dust settles on the recent US elections, partisan divides feel more entrenched than ever. In this interview, Egon Tripodi, Assistant Professor of Economics at the Hertie School, discusses key insights from “Talking Across the Aisle”, his latest paper co-authored with Luca Braghieri (Bocconi University) and Peter Schwardmann (Carnegie Mellon University) and published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). The paper explores how fact-based conversations could help bridge political divisions, offering hope for fostering understanding in an increasingly fractured political landscape.

Why focus on this topic now?

We wanted to understand why people avoid interacting with those holding opposing political views and explore whether conversations focussed on facts, rather than opinions, could be more productive. The results showed that people are more open to engaging across political lines if they feel the interaction will be useful or if they perceive the other person as knowledgeable. Interestingly, people are overly pessimistic about how unpleasant such conversations might be – but this changes once they actually experience them.

How were the conversations conducted?

Using a randomised video-call platform, we paired nearly 1,000 Americans across the political spectrum to discuss factual issues. Participants answered questions on 14 political facts before and after their eight-minute conversations, which were with either a co-partisan or counter-partisan. The format allowed for natural, unstructured exchanges, and a follow-up survey 100 days later assessed the long-term impact.

What did the study find?

We observed that focussing on factual discussions significantly reduced polarisation – even on contentious issues like immigration. Participants gained insights and developed a better understanding of opposing perspectives. However, a persistent challenge was the tendency to assume one’s side is more informed across all issues, despite evidence that “knowledge is distributed” between Democrats and Republicans.

How does this relate to the current political climate?

The US elections highlight a broader trend of ideological echo chambers, where people surround themselves with like-minded individuals. Breaking through these bubbles requires recognising the value of diverse perspectives. Fact-based conversations offer a promising approach to fostering mutual understanding by encouraging participants to share what they know rather than persuade others.

Where do we go from here?

Our study highlights the power of factual discussions to reduce animosity and create space for peaceful dialogue. While divisive election campaigns exacerbate polarisation, our study shows that people can engage constructively despite having different political views.

We’re now exploring what makes factual conversations so effective and how to replicate these dynamics in other settings – whether addressing ideological divides in the US or tackling segregation and prejudice in other contexts. Making such interactions more common could be a significant step towards healing politically and socially torn societies.