Today, the U.S. and many other democracies have found themselves dangerously divided across political and racial-ethnic differences. Under these conditions, more extreme, politically-engaged actors – known as conflict entrepreneurs – tend to wield disproportionate influence, with more moderate citizens disengaging politically, sparking a vicious cycle.
The good news is that there are currently thousands of bridge-building groups in communities across the country and across sectors such as government, journalism, business, education, volunteerism, and more, who are working tirelessly to bring willing members of opposing groups together to meet, dialogue, and at times mobilize together to address shared concerns.
The bad news is that in today’s divisive climate, these bridge-building initiatives face significant challenges to bipartisan involvement due to their often-one-sided appeal to progressive Democrats versus conservative Republicans, and their difficulty engaging significant numbers of currently-disengaged moderates who are simply exhausted and fed up with politics. So, we conducted 6 studies (N = 2,179) to investigate ways to mobilize citizens to engage in bridge-building activities fostering intergroup tolerance and compassion.
Derived from basic theories of motivation, we tested the effects of four distinct motivational mindsets on mobilizing citizens to engage across our divides:
- Avoiding Harm – people mostly motivated to reduce negative outcomes of polarization;
- Seeking Solutions – people seeking ideal positive outcomes through depolarization;
- Getting it Right – those wanting to evaluate the best way to achieve depolarization; and
- Just Getting it Done – those preferring to just get going – to move forward to "get it done."
We also examined the framing effects of how the bridging activities were presented on differences in engagement. We found that individuals with stronger levels of each of the four motivational mindsets were more likely to express willingness to engage in bridging activities when the activities were framed in ways consistent (fitting) versus inconsistent (non-fitting) with their stronger motives.
We also found that different types of bridge-building activities – those focused on uniting communities versus those aimed at reckoning with political differences – attracted different types of people from distinct political, racial and gender groups.
These findings have significant implications for bridge-building groups seeking to bring Americans together to reduce the odds of political violence and help reunite the country.
For example, to increase engagement, B-B groups could use these brief pre-measures to assess participants’ motives and then frame messaging of their activities (on websites or written materials) to fit with different mindsets. Also, Racial B-B in the US should focus on hopeful, promotion framing for community-gathering activities to broaden outreach.
Click here to read the full article. Click here for instructions on using the surveys.