Interventions to reduce partisan animosity
Abstract
Rising partisan animosity is associated with a reduction in support for democracy and an increase in support for political violence. Here we provide a multi-level review of interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity, which we define as negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours towards a political outgroup. We introduce the TRI framework to capture three levels of intervention-thoughts (correcting misconceptions and highlighting commonalities), relationships (building dialogue skills and fostering positive contact) and institutions (changing public discourse and transforming political structures)-and connect these levels by highlighting the importance of motivation and mobilization. Our review encompasses both interventions conducted as part of academic research projects and real-world interventions led by practitioners in non-profit organizations. We also explore the challenges of durability and scalability, examine self-fulfilling polarization and interventions that backfire, and discuss future directions for reducing partisan animosity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006) · Journal of personality and social psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 · Cited by 8,964 · see citing works
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Mason, L. (2018) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001 · Cited by 1,985 · see citing works
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265 · see citing works
Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 · Cited by 947 · see citing works
Political Sectarianism in America
Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abe1715 · Cited by 931 · see citing works
Self-citationThe welfare effects of social media
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20190658 · Cited by 857 · see citing works
Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges
Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S., & Green, D. P. (2021) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619 · Cited by 686 · see citing works
Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization
Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7 · Cited by 503 · see citing works
Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413510932 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Anderson, C. A. (2001) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00109 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding
Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612464058 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
(Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public
Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfv045 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Gimpel, J. G., & Hui, I. S. (2015) · Political Geography · doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.11.003 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A., & Feinberg, M. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived Polarization
Enders, A. M., & Armaly, M. T. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Reducing affective polarization: Warm group relations or policy compromise?
Huddy, L., & Yair, O. (2021) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12699 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Incivility is rising among American politicians on twitter
Frimer, J. A., Aujla, H., Feinberg, M., Skitka, L. J., Aquino, K., Eichstaedt, J. C., & Willer, R. (2023) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/19485506221083811 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Inseparability of Race and Partisanship in the United States
Westwood, S. J., & Peterson, E. (2022) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09648-9 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization
Moore-Berg, S. L., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.001 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
The Perception Gap: How False Impressions are Pulling Americans Apart
Yudkin, D. A., Hawkins, S., & Dixon, T. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/r3h5q · Cited by 64 · see citing works
When Efforts to Depolarize the Electorate Fail
Levendusky, M. S. (2018) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfy036 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
What Underlies Political Polarization? A Manifesto for Computational Political Psychology
Rollwage, M., Zmigrod, L., de-Wit, L., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.006 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Crawford, J. T., & Ruscio, J. (2021) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620972367 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media.
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231185057 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
“Interventions that effectively reduce affective polarization provide further inspiration (Hartman et al., 2022; Voelkel et al., 2022).”
BackgroundMegastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/y79u5 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Self-citationArgyle, L. P., Bail, C. A., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Howe, T., Rytting, C., Sorensen, T., & Wingate, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2311627120 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Self-citationVan Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Self-citationHow to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
How Effective Are Interventions Against Misinformation?
Altay, S. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sm3vk · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hartman, R., Blakey, W., Womick, J., Bail, C., Finkel, E. J., Han, H., Sarrouf, J., Schroeder, J., Sheeran, P., Van Bavel, J. J., Willer, R., & Gray, K.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Essential Partners (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hartman, Rachel
- Gray, Kurt
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2022-09-19
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1194-1205
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4296292997
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 23.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- The Charles Koch Foundation (via the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding), Acton Family Giving, and the New Pluralists Initiative
- Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
- The New Pluralist Initiative
- Fetzer Foundation and the Civic Health Project
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- partisan animosity, political polarization, intergroup relations, outgroup attitudes, misconceptions correction, commonality, conversation skills, positive contact, public discourse, political institutions, support for democracy, political violence, intervention durability, scalability, backfire effect
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Motivation, Politics, Violence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
