{"id":11804,"date":"2018-04-07T02:31:12","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T02:31:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=11804"},"modified":"2018-04-08T02:34:48","modified_gmt":"2018-04-08T02:34:48","slug":"why-is-it-so-stressful-to-talk-politics-with-the-other-side","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/why-is-it-so-stressful-to-talk-politics-with-the-other-side\/","title":{"rendered":"Why is it so stressful to talk politics with the other side?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Melanie Green<\/a>, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

People disagree all the time, but not all disagreements lead to the same levels of stress. <\/p>\n

Even though people can be passionate about their favorite sport teams, they can argue about which basketball team is the best without destroying friendships. In the workplace, co-workers can often dispute strategies and approaches without risking a long-term fallout.<\/p>\n

Political conversations, on the other hand, seem to have become especially challenging in recent years. Stories of tense Thanksgiving dinners<\/a> and of Facebook friends being unfriended<\/a> have become commonplace.<\/p>\n

Why does this happen?<\/p>\n

Our research \u2013 and related research in political psychology \u2013 suggest two broad answers. <\/p>\n

First, our work shows that divisive topics \u2013 issues that are polarizing, or on which there\u2019s no general societywide consensus \u2013 can evoke feelings of anxiety and threat. That is, simply considering these topics appears to put people on guard. <\/p>\n

Second, research on moral conviction<\/a> by psychologist Linda Skitka and her colleagues suggests that attitudes linked to moral values can contribute to social distancing. In other words, if someone considers their position on an issue to be a question of right versus wrong or good versus evil, they\u2019re less likely to want to interact with a person who disagrees on that issue. <\/p>\n

An automatic trigger of anxiety<\/h2>\n

In our research, we define divisive issues as ones that don\u2019t have a clear consensus. <\/p>\n

For example, just about everyone supports food safety; but if you bring up issues like abortion or capital punishment, you\u2019ll see people fall into opposing camps. <\/p>\n

People also like to have a general idea of where someone falls on an issue before they start debating it. If you\u2019re talking with a stranger, you don\u2019t know how to anticipate their position on a divisive topic. This creates an uncertainty that can be uncomfortable.<\/p>\n

With this framework in mind, behavioral scientist Joseph Simons and I designed a series of studies<\/a> to explore how this plays out. <\/p>\n

In our first study, we simply asked individuals to look at a list of 60 social issues (ranging from safe tap water to slavery) and estimated what percentage of people are in favor of that issue. Participants also rated how much they would feel anxious, threatened, interested or relaxed when discussing that issue. <\/p>\n

As expected, people thought they would feel more anxious and threatened when discussing a topic that was generally considered more divisive. (Under some circumstances \u2013 such as when people didn\u2019t hold a strong attitude on the issue themselves \u2013 they did feel somewhat more interested in discussing these topics.)<\/p>\n

In a second study, we investigated the experience of threat at an unconscious level. That is, do divisive topics automatically trigger anxiety? <\/p>\n

We conducted an experiment that was based on the psychological finding<\/a> that people don\u2019t always recognize the source of their emotional responses. Feelings that are evoked by one event or object can \u201ccarry over\u201d to an unrelated judgment. In this study, we presented participants with a popular topic (for example, supporting veterans), an unpopular topic (high unemployment) or a divisive topic (stem cell research). They then saw a neutral computer-generated picture of a face and had to quickly rate how threatening the face appeared. <\/p>\n

Participants were more likely to see a neutral face as threatening if they were thinking about a divisive topic. (Unpopular topics showed a similar effect.)<\/p>\n

A third study replicated these effects using fictitious polling data about direct-to-consumer drug advertising. We told some participants that there was a high public consensus about support for this sort of advertising, and we told others that there was wide disagreement. Specifically, we told them that either 20 percent, 50 percent or 80 percent of the public was in favor of these ads.<\/p>\n

Participants then imagined discussing the issue and reported how they would feel. As in previous studies, those who were told there was more disagreement tended to feel more threatened or anxious about the prospect of discussing the issue.<\/p>\n

\u2018Right and wrong\u2019 adds a layer of complication<\/h2>\n

An additional social obstacle goes beyond mere disagreement. Consider two individuals who oppose the death penalty.<\/p>\n

One person may think that the death penalty is morally wrong, whereas the other person may believe that the death penalty is ineffective at deterring crime. Although both individuals may strongly support their position, the first person holds this attitude with moral conviction.<\/p>\n

Research by Skitka and her colleagues<\/a> highlights the social consequences of these \u201cmoral mandates.\u201d When it\u2019s a matter of right or wrong, people become less tolerant of others who hold the opposite view. Specifically, individuals with stronger moral convictions tended to not want to associate with those who disagreed with them on certain issues. This social distancing was reflected both in survey responses \u2013 \u201cwould be happy to be friends with this person\u201d \u2013 and even physical distance, like placing a chair farther away from a person with an opposing view. <\/p>\n

Of course, no one is ever going to agree on every issue. But it\u2019s important for people to learn about where others are coming from in order to reach a compromise. <\/p>\n

Unfortunately, compromise or consensus is more difficult to come by if people start out the conversation feeling threatened. And if individuals feel that someone who holds an opposite view is simply a bad person, the conversation may never happen at all. <\/p>\n

In the end, it doesn\u2019t matter if you\u2019re talking to a stranger or friends; the possibility of exclusion or avoidance<\/a> increases when a divisive topic is raised. <\/p>\n

There\u2019s no easy solution. Sometimes raising these topics may reveal irreconcilable differences. But other times, a willingness to approach difficult topics calmly<\/a> \u2013 while truly listening to the other side \u2013 may help people find common ground or promote change. <\/p>\n

\"TheIt might also be helpful to take a step back. A disagreement on a single issue \u2013 even a morally charged one \u2013 isn\u2019t necessarily grounds for discontinuing a friendship. On the other hand, focusing on other shared bonds and morals can salvage or strengthen the relationship.<\/p>\n

Melanie Green<\/a>, Associate Professor of Communication, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This article was originally published on The Conversation<\/a>. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Melanie Green, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York People disagree all the time, but not all disagreements lead to the same levels of stress. Even though people can be passionate about their favorite sport teams, they can argue about which basketball team is the best without destroying friendships. In the workplace, co-workers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":11805,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[293],"tags":[1789,3646,4303,3959,209,461,4302],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11804"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11804"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11804\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11806,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11804\/revisions\/11806"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11805"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}