A new psychology tool from the University of Basel measures how far we will go to talk with people who disagree. The findings challenge assumptions about political conflict and offer clues for bridging divides.
Democracy depends on people being willing to talk across political lines. Yet in an era of rising polarization, many of us avoid conversations with those who see the world differently.
Researchers at the University of Basel have now developed a way to measure just how far people are willing to go in engaging with opposing views — and what separates those who lean into tough conversations from those who shut them down.
Social psychologist Melissa Jauch, a research associate in the Department of Social Psychology, and her colleagues created a tool called WEDO, short for Willingness to Engage With Differently Minded Others. Their work, recently published in the journal Political Psychology, draws on four studies involving psychology students in Basel as well as participants in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Jauch starts from a simple premise.
“Democracy thrives on political discourse,” she said in a news release.
For her, that is not an abstract slogan but a practical guide.
“It is therefore essential in a democracy that people talk to each other. This helps to understand the other side better and, in the best case, to bridge political divides. On the other hand, it’s also a chance to critically examine one’s own views,” she added.
At the same time, she noted, many people shy away from such exchanges, whether because they fear conflict, worry about damaging relationships, or want to protect their self-esteem. That tension led her to a central question: under what conditions are people actually willing to talk to those who think differently?
“It is therefore important to understand the circumstances under which people are willing to talk to people who think differently,” added Jauch.
To explore that, the Basel team designed WEDO as a structured way to capture how open someone really is to disagreement.
In the studies, participants were first shown a topic such as sustainability or immigration and asked to indicate their own position on a multi-point scale. This step established where they stood personally, from strongly opposed to strongly in favor.
Next came the key test. Participants were asked to assemble a hypothetical discussion group on that same topic. They could decide which range of opinions would be acceptable in the group. Some might include only people who were close to their own view. Others might be willing to bring in people with moderately or even extremely different positions.
By looking at how wide a range of views each person allowed into their imagined discussion, WEDO goes beyond a simple yes-or-no question about dialogue. Instead, it captures the depth of someone’s tolerance for disagreement — how deep a divide they are willing to tolerate in conversation.
Across the four studies, a pattern emerged. People who were more open to engaging with different opinions tended to think more analytically and had a general drive to understand issues in depth. They were more inclined to examine arguments, weigh evidence and look for nuance.
On the other hand, those who relied more on snap judgments and clear-cut categories were less likely to welcome opposing views.
“People who tend to think in black and white and rely more on their gut feeling, however, are less willing to engage in dialog,” Jauch added.
One of the most surprising findings, Jauch noted, was what did not seem to matter as much as expected: whether a topic was politically controversial.
The researchers had assumed that people would be especially reluctant to hear opposing views on hot-button issues. Instead, one of the studies suggested the opposite.
“We assumed that differing opinions would tend to be avoided when it came to controversial topics. This did not prove to be the case; on the contrary: according to one study, people are more willing to engage with other opinions when it comes to controversial issues,” added Jauch.
That result hints at a more hopeful picture of political talk. When the stakes feel high, some people may actually be more motivated to understand other perspectives, not less.
The work is still in progress. Jauch and her team see many open questions. They want to know why controversial topics sometimes draw people into dialogue instead of driving them away, and what kinds of settings make political discussions more constructive rather than more polarizing.
They are also exploring whether other personality traits, beyond analytical or intuitive thinking styles, shape a person’s willingness to engage. Stereotypes may play a role as well: if someone assumes that all supporters of a particular position are hostile or ignorant, they may be less inclined to talk at all.
Even at this early stage, the researchers say WEDO has clear advantages. Unlike full-scale behavioral experiments, which can be time-consuming and expensive, the tool is relatively quick to administer and easy to adapt to different topics and cultural contexts. It allows for a more nuanced picture than simply asking whether someone supports dialogue in principle.
By mapping out how wide a range of views people are prepared to entertain, WEDO can help identify the psychological and social factors that either open the door to conversation or slam it shut. That knowledge could inform efforts in education, civic programs and online platforms that aim to foster healthier public debate.
For students and citizens alike, the research offers a mirror. It invites people to ask not only what they believe, but how far they are willing to stretch to hear from those who disagree — and whether they are prepared to move beyond black-and-white thinking toward more thoughtful, and potentially bridge-building, conversations.
Source: University of Basel