James Coan and Katie Hyten on Scaling Up Dialogue and Other Forms of Interpersonal Communication to Bridge Political Divides
Newsletter 327 - March 3, 2025
Note: All our newsletters are also available on the BI Newsletter Archive.
James Coan sent us a link to an article he co-authored with Imre Huss on scaling up interpersonal communication which was originally published in The Fulcrum on February 16, 2025. James was hoping that we'd include it in a coming "links" newsletter, but its message seemed important enough to what we are trying to do here that I asked if we could post it in full instead. Happily, James agreed. Here it is!
After James and Imre's article, we are also including a short piece reminding our readers about our discussion with Katie Hyten of Essential Partners (EP) which took place in October of 2023. EP, too, is very interested in ways of scaling dialogues, and has come up with yet another way of doing it that is a good addition to the list of options James and Imre list here.
Interpersonal communication is a – not the only – way to reduce political divides
by James Coan and Imre Huss
Think of the words “a” and “the.” Two of the smallest and most basic words in English, it is easy to not think very closely about which to use.
Yet when it comes to thinking about how to reduce perceived political divides, the difference becomes clear.
Many thought leaders and organizations in this space have appeared to suggest that interpersonal communication is the (only) way to reduce political divides, rather than just a method (among other approaches). For instance, in a recent interview for the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s The Commons, a leader in the field said, “...only at that human level, the 1 to 1 conversation, the smallest units of connection, can we build trust at all.”
The more this statement refers to trust between two unique individuals, the greater its potential validity. Yet when thinking about attitudes and trust between groups, this notion is scientifically questionable, as no widely accepted theories in psychology rule out other possible ways to achieve goals between groups, including reducing affective polarization and building trust. In fact, numerous theories in social science provide suggestions for other methods to bring groups together besides conversation and personal connection, three of which will be described later in this article: parasocial contact theory, vicarious contact theory, and correcting misperceptions – especially of threat.
Interpersonal models of reducing divides between groups are often based on the traditional form of contact theory, sometimes called the contact hypothesis. Contact theory, originally developed in the 1950s, notes that interpersonal contact should reduce prejudice between groups, under the right conditions. It was originally studied to reduce prejudice between white and black Americans, but it has been used relatively effectively to improve attitudes between other “opposing groups” in political settings. Authors of contact theory have never claimed that it is the only possible method, and the original formulation actually suggested four highly restrictive conditions for it to work. Only more recent researchers have suggested these conditions can be relaxed, though potentially with a drawback of reduced efficacy, though failing to reach these conditions risks counterproductive negative contact.
Even if approaches based on interpersonal communication and contact theory are fairly effective, they are difficult – if not impossible – to scale. In a previous article for The Fulcrum, James noted the 4 R’s that reduce conversation workshop effectiveness, starting with the difficult recruitment of enough people who have the time, interest, energy, and confidence to engage in cross-partisan conversations, and ending with the challenging repetition of conversations likely needed in the context of a divisive media environment. The other R’s recognize potential effectiveness issues: uncertain reliability of the helpfulness of conversations, and unclear representativeness of conversation partners to the broader out-group.
Given these challenges with interpersonal approaches, it becomes desirable to find some additional methods for reducing real and perceived political divides. Thankfully, social science offers various other approaches with supporting evidence, with three of options described below, recognizing others are also possible. These options work through the media environment, likely giving them greater capacity to scale to millions of Americans, even if they may need more repetition for them to fully impact Americans, since they may lack the stickiness and intensity of impact of deep conversations:
Parasocial contact theory: This theory in psychology and media studies suggests that exposure to positive media portrayals of outgroups can reduce prejudice, and research into its application has been fruitful. Parasocial “relationships” are one-sided, with someone one doesn't personally know, such as with characters in stories or celebrities. Parasocial contact has been found to allow the viewer to relate more easily to a group that they may have previously harbored prejudice against. A 2017 study from the University of Wisconsin found that entertainment-based interventions, such as educational videos or television shows showing an outgroup as relatable, resulted in statistically significant decreases in prejudice towards that outgroup (in this case Muslims). Another study from 2006 suggested that parasocial contact with the gay characters in Will and Grace reduced anti-gay prejudice. While no studies have been done directly on its application for political divides, researchers have suggested it as a potential application of the theory, and it has been studied in the context of politically charged topics like COVID-19. Outside of academic research, parasocial contact theory has already been identified as a rationale by organizations such as Bridge Entertainment Labs.
Vicarious contact theory: Somewhat similar to parasocial contact theory, this is more focused on normalized interactions between ingroups and outgroups, often applied through media. Vicarious contact theory emphasizes indirect experiences of positive intergroup interactions. Academic research in this area has shown positive results, with recent studies applying it to relations to individuals with autism and normalizing immigrant relations among schoolchildren. For instance, Mónica Guzmán, Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels, has frequently talked about “modeling” good conversations, which is highly aligned with vicarious contact. Bridge Entertainment Lab’s extensive catalog of social science research likely relevant to political divides includes vicarious contact theory.
Correcting misperceptions – especially of threat: Two of the three top-performing interventions in the Strengthening Democracy Challenge, led by Stanford – all of which significantly reduced anti-democratic attitudes, support for political violence, and partisan animosity – explicitly focused on correcting overly negative perceptions of those in the other political party. These misperceptions focused on threats, overestimating the tendencies of those across the political spectrum to dehumanize and break democratic norms. Correcting misperceptions was the first suggestion in a Nature article co-authored by more than a dozen leading researchers in the field, and political violence expert Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment wrote in 2023, “Interventions should aim to reduce feelings of threat, not just feelings of dislike.” This work has been so convincing to James that he co-founded and now leads an organization, More Like US, that tries to correct these dangerous political misperceptions of each other.
Parasocial contact theory, vicarious contact theory, and correcting misperceptions of each other are options to reduce real and perceived political divides, along with traditional contact theory that emphasizes interpersonal communication. These additional options that focus on the media environment offer much more potential to scale, presenting a more feasible pathway to reach the minimum 85 million Americans who need to be impacted that both of us identified in our recent article.
Different options likely work best depending on the situation, and interpersonal conversations can be particularly useful for those who have the time to engage in deep conversations that can build into relationships (e.g., high school students in government class every day). Distinct interventions can also be used together; for instance, correcting misperceptions of threats should reduce anxiety about having conversations, improving the usefulness of interpersonal approaches.
This article does not intend to say which intervention is “best,” but only that many options for reducing political divides exist. Interpersonal communication is not the only method, it is simply a method, with pros and cons like any other. More organizations in this space should feel comfortable going beyond contact theory and expanding their toolkit, especially to media environment interventions that look promising and offer scale.
Essential Partners' Approach to the Scale Problem
In our October 2023 conversation with Katie Hyten, Co-Executive Director of Essential Partners (EP), Katie explained that they are working on scaling up the benefits of interpersonal communication and dialogue by partnering with organizations and communities to train them in dialogic skills such that they begin using those skills routinely to deal with conflict and/or make decisions, or even just to run meetings and do "normal business." She explained:
Our work really focuses on helping shift the fabric of the DNA of our partners over time in ways that model and reflect the best ways in which they are already working. So, it's adaptable, it's scalable, and it's able to be authentic for each space that we work in. We want to equip people over time to hold this, not just in the separate space of dialogue, which still certainly will happen, but also to embed it within the life of that space.
So whether it's a school that is using dialogic principals in their classrooms, and all of their teachers are helping equip their students with these skills, but also teaching the curriculum in a dialogic way, or a YMCA that's embedding dialogic elements into their programming, or a library that's thinking about how to support places for community connection in their programming, or a city government that does its community meetings and community engagement differently because of their work with us, we want to embed it [dialogue] so that the system changes, because we know that no matter what happens with this issue, regardless of what "this issue" is in your context, the next issue is just going to be right around the corner. So we want to help prepare you for that, too.
Katie quoted a police chief they had worked with who said:
"I'm actually going to be using this dialogue methodology for all of our community engagement for our whole department, for the police. It's just how we're going to do things." And that's what we hear over and over, that once you take it out of this kind of separate space, these tools become just how you do things around here. ...
So it becomes how you have your one-on-ones. It becomes how you have your team meetings. And then you also begin to see opportunities to collaborate across organizations. So one of the schools that we worked at in North Carolina actually partnered with the police to talk about school safety and creating a more safe community, especially for their students of color. And so that became a really powerful opportunity to build ties across these institutions, that once you've had deep transformation, you can start to see that scale.
Another way this scales up is that people see it working in other organizations, and want to implement something similar in their own organizations. Again, in Katie's words:
what's often happening with our work right now is that people will see other YMCAs, for example, doing something differently. And then they'll say, "Wait, what is this? How do you do this? I would love to do this." And so it kind of grows that way, where as long as you can have models and examples of something different that's working, those give kind of a spark of hope to people who didn't know that another way was possible.
So I think our challenge right now is helping people understand that another way is possible and then help kind of scaffold in that support so that we can meet folks where they're at.
Indeed, that's what Essential Partners, James' organization More Like Us, and many more "bridging" organizations are trying to do. And it is something all of us can try to do, if we step out of our silos and comfortable partisan circles and really try to listen to, talk to, and understand people who perhaps see the world in ways that are different than us. However, as James often points out, those folks who we think are "different"— and maybe even misguided, stupid, or even evil — actually, aren't as different as we think they are. Often, they are more like us than we know. And the more we can find that out, the easier it becomes to start working together to solve mutual problems, the more our political divides will begin to shrink, both in real terms, and in importance to what we are trying to do.
--------------------------------------
Lead Graphic Credit: Drawing Created for this Post by ChatGPT.
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
BI sends out newsletter 2-3 times a week. Two of these are substantive articles. Once a week or so we compile a list of the most interesting reading we have found related to our topics of interest: intractable conflict, hyper-polarization, and democracy, and we share them in a "Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links” newsletter. These links include articles sent by readers, information about our colleagues’ activities, and news and opinion pieces that we have found to be of particular interest. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.
NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....