How should you talk to someone you disagree with?

{"text":[[{"start":null,"text":"

"}],[{"start":7.55,"text":"The writer is a science commentator"}],[{"start":11,"text":"In most situations, I tend to go for the glass half-full over the evidently identical alternative. I’m a sucker for framing, the phenomenon by which the same thing described in different ways can elicit different responses."}],[{"start":27.64,"text":"That famously semi-poured tumbler is an example of positive-negative framing in social psychology. Likewise, a surgical operation framed as having an 80 per cent survival rate might get more takers than one with a 20 per cent death rate — despite the outcomes being statistically identical."}],[{"start":47.47,"text":"Now, researchers claim that a different kind of framing matters when people discuss contentious issues: declaring what you oppose, rather than what you support, is likely to play more positively among those who disagree with you. For example, a campaigner for abortion rights can express their stance in two different ways: supporting a woman’s right to choose or opposing an abortion ban. The latter sentiment is likely to be received more openly by those against abortion, according to a study published last month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology."}],[{"start":83.86,"text":"The findings matter in a polarised world: we should welcome fresh thinking on how to encourage civil conversations across ideological divides. Thoughtful reframing could be key to building what currently seem like impossible bridges."}],[{"start":101.91,"text":"Rhia Catapano, assistant professor of marketing at Toronto university, and Zakary Tormala, a behavioural scientist at Stanford University, conducted a host of experiments involving more than 10,000 participants reading or hearing statements they disagreed with on divisive issues such as gun control, abortion, taxing the wealthy and same-sex marriage. The statements differed only in whether the communicator framed their view in terms of support or opposition. Sometimes only the first sentence of a three-paragraph explanation was swapped out to switch the framing, from “I support X” to “I oppose Y”."}],[{"start":145.3,"text":"“We then measured how receptive people were to the message”, Catapano told me, “by assessing how receptive they felt, but also how willing they were to engage, how they felt towards the speaker and whether the message nudged their own attitudes.” The disagreeing listeners were consistently more receptive when the position was framed in opposing terms. That, she explained, was because “oppose framing” aligned more closely to how they viewed the issue at stake. Conversely, participants who agreed with the communicator preferred support-framed messages."}],[{"start":183.60000000000002,"text":"For one of the experiments, the researchers recruited Reddit users to simulate the kind of discussions that abound on the online forum. When presented with statements they disagreed with, users were similarly more likely to click on and engage with oppose-framed messages. The results, Catapano added, were modest but robust across various issues."}],[{"start":207.95000000000002,"text":"The findings make sense to Matthew Facciani, a social scientist at Georgetown University and author of Misguided, which explores the interplay between personal identity and misinformation. Facciani, who was not involved in the study, explained that messages that threatened a person’s identity were an instant turn-off: “Emphasising what one supports can inadvertently highlight values the listener rejects, whereas focusing on [aspects of] shared or overlapping opposition can feel less threatening.”"}],[{"start":240.58,"text":"The results, he added, were not a cure for polarisation but could make people more willing to listen to the other side. The key to productive dialogue is “creating the psychological conditions for openness rather than pushing for quick agreement”. In other words, it is less about winning the argument and more about turning down the heat. The study’s authors note that most social movements, like Black Lives Matter, are named for the causes they champion: while it lands well with supporters, they might get broader traction by referencing the injustices they oppose."}],[{"start":279.32,"text":"Since the research was only published last month, Catapano said it was too early to say whether it would percolate through to politicians and others in public life. That so many culture wars are waged online can make good-faith engagement across the trenches seem like an uphill struggle. Social media algorithms fill our feeds with material that confirms our worldview and, except for the occasional piece of rage bait, largely filters out content that challenges it. Research like this, which encourages judicious reframing, could help to course-correct."}],[{"start":319.31,"text":"Will it make a shred of difference in practice? Your answer probably depends on how you view that half-poured tumbler."}],[{"start":327.64,"text":"Letter in response:"}],[{"start":330.12,"text":"My brother will take umbrage at the misnomer / From Savya Poddar, Grade 9 Student, Singapore"}],[{"start":343.91,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1769012606_8503.mp3"}