Researchers have discovered that open communication is the sole effective approach for reaching highly polarised people, including conspiracy theorists, in what could reshape political discourse strategies.
The study published in the British Journal of Political Science found that debate-heavy, challenging communication methods failed entirely in polarised situations, whilst open discussion that prompts reflection succeeded where other approaches could not.
Cambridge University Press researchers analysed over 4,000 participants across two population-based survey experiments in Germany and Austria during the COVID-19 crisis, examining polarisation around health versus freedom priorities and mandatory vaccination respectively.
The German survey with 2,132 respondents revealed stark differences in communication effectiveness, with half of participants using collaborative dynamics making constructive proposals compared to only 5 per cent using contestatory approaches.
Austrian participants showed higher polarisation levels, with 69.5 per cent holding strong pre-existing vaccine beliefs versus 37.3 per cent of Germans having strong health-freedom opinions. In Austria’s highly polarised environment, only open communication could moderate beliefs.
“These findings suggest that in the context of high polarisation, confronting participants with counter-positions as well as asking them to seek out common ground with the other side is counterproductive, and seems to be perceived as a challenge to one’s own position,” said lead researcher Simon Stocker, Research Fellow at the University of Stuttgart.
The research has significant implications for addressing conspiracy theories, with open questioning proving the only method showing even minimal depolarisation effects among people with extreme conspiratorial views.
André Bächtiger, Managing Director of the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart, emphasised the contemporary relevance of effective political communication.
“We are witnessing declining levels of argumentative complexity and of people listening respectfully to different sides of an argument, often in combination with a polarisation of opinions,” Bächtiger said, highlighting concerns about online debate quality.
The study suggests that when polarisation is less extreme, simple information exposure can change minds regardless of communication style, but highly polarised situations demand carefully calibrated open dialogue approaches.
