Even though Brexit happened several years ago, the social divisions it created remain relevant in the United Kingdom today. The divide between those who voted to leave the European Union (Leavers) and those who wanted to remain (Remainers) has led to an ongoing climate of hostility – a phenomenon scholars refer to as "affective polarization".
### **Affective Polarization: More Than Just a Disagreement**
Affective polarization occurs when opposing groups don’t just disagree on issues but also come to view each other with animosity and disdain. It thus goes beyond political or ideological differences and becomes a genuine dislike for people on the other side of a debate. The consequences of such division are significant: from broken friendships and an unwillingness to compromise to growing support for political violence.
How can we heal these fractures between "us" and "them"? Our team of researchers – Nicole Tausch, Michèle Birtel, Paulina Górska, Sidney Bode, and Carolina Rocha – tested if a structured, evidence-based intervention could reduce hostility between Leavers and Remainers. Could respectful dialogue and guided intergroup contact help foster understanding and openness to reconciliation, even among people who might despise each other?
### **Finding Solutions: Building Bridges with Intergroup Contact and Respectful Dialoge**
We drew on insights from intergroup contact theory, which suggests that meaningful interactions between members of opposing groups can reduce negative attitudes, particularly when contact generates some level of interpersonal closeness and cultivates a sense of common identity. Respectful dialogue, in this context, emphasizes learning from different perspectives rather than trying to win arguments (debate) or persuade others (discussion). The goal is to build and strengthen relationships.
Guided by these principles, we conducted a longitudinal randomized controlled trial in which 120 self-identified Remainer-Leaver participated in a structured, facilitated online interaction. Participants were paired into dyads consisting of one Remainer and one Leaver and were randomly assigned to either an experimental condition focusing on Brexit or a control condition discussing a neutral topic (the future of the Royal Family).
### **Intervention Design: Three Steps to Building Bridges**
The intervention consisted of three stages of contact:
* Stage 1: **"Fast Friends" personal contact**: Participants began with a series of personal, non-political questions designed to reduce anxiety and foster personal connection by sharing individual stories.
* Stage 2: **Brexit dialogue**: Participants then engaged in a structured dialogue on Brexit (vs. Royal Family), using principles of respectful communication. This stage highlighted their group identities (Remainer vs. Leaver) to generalize positive feelings towards the opposing group as a whole.
* Stage 3: **A shared goal**: Finally, participants worked together on a cooperative task (brainstorming strategies to protect health during the pandemic) to create a sense of common identity.
Following the **communication principles of respectful dialogue**, throughout the intervention, participants were encouraged to actively listen, validate each other’s perspectives, and focus on non-adversarial exchanges to find common ground.
### **Intervention Effectiveness – Short-Term Effects**
The findings were both promising and limited. Participants in the Brexit intervention group expressed greater warmth towards the opposing side, showed a willingness to consider compromise, and were less likely to attribute the opposing side's opinions to irrationality or emotionality, than those in the control group. However, these positive effects did not last. A follow-up survey one month later showed that the initial gains in understanding and empathy had largely dissipated. This suggests that while a single well-structured conversation can reduce hostility in the short term, lasting change requires more sustained efforts. But did the participants even enjoy the interaction?
### **Intervention Experiences – "I Was Surprised at How Well It Went"**
Many participants shared positive experiences about their interaction, which they initially expected to be challenging or negative:
_“Very interesting discussion, thanks! I was glad of the opportunity to engage with a Remainer in a pre-planned way rather than being frightened to start a debate or express my views and opinions in case someone was offended or agressive as sometimes happens in daily/public life.”_
_“Thank you for this. My Remainer in the debate was a lovely person with a good heart”_
_“Thank you for the opportunity to have such a useful and balanced conversation with somebody I would not otherwise have met.”_
_“Thank you for the opportunity… I really enjoyed the session despite being anxious before. It was lovely to meet X.”_
_“I found I could find common ground with the Leaver I spoke to in the Teams meeting.”_
_“Apart from how we voted, we did not disagree on many points.”_
These comments highlight how structured dialogue created a safe environment that allowed participants to genuinely engage and connect, free from the anxiety of confrontation.
### **Lessons and Optimism for Future Interventions in Polarized S****ettings**
Two key challenges emerged from the study:
1. 1. **_No lasting effects:_** The initial positive effects faded over time. Sustaining change will require ongoing engagement and repeated interactions, not just a one-time conversation.
2. **_Engaging the most polarized:_** People with the most entrenched, negative views were less likely to participate in the dialogue. Those who might benefit most from these conversations are often the most resistant to engaging in them.
Our study provides several important insights for future efforts aimed at reducing polarization:
1. 1. **_Framework for future research:_** While structured respectful contact can temporarily reduce hostility, sustaining these effects will require ongoing engagement. A single conversation, however well-designed, is unlikely to produce lasting change. Future interventions may need to prioritize repeated interactions or longer-term programs that build on initial successes and maintain momentum. This study provides a framework for future research on interventions in polarized environments.
2. **_Reaching the most polarized:_** The study highlights the difficulty of engaging those with deeply entrenched views. Efforts to reduce polarization must also address how to involve those who are most resistant to change. Finding creative ways to engage these individuals will be crucial.
Despite the challenges, our study offers an optimistic message. People were willing to come together, share their perspectives, and leave with increased warmth and understanding—even if only temporarily. This willingness to connect underscores the potential for dialogue to bridge divides. The study indicates that progress is possible, though it will require persistence, creativity, and a commitment to fostering long-term dialogue and community-building.
### **Why It Matters: Human Connection Can Overcome Political Divides**
Affective polarization isn’t just an interpersonal issue; it poses a threat to democratic processes. When people see their political opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens, cooperation and compromise become increasingly difficult, weakening the very foundations of democracy.
Our intervention may not be a one fix all solution, but it highlights the power of human connection. Participants also commented on how they surprisingly enjoyed the interaction and felt less anxious. Whether through structured conversations, community dialogues, or other initiatives that bring people together across ideological divides, the key takeaway is that personal contact matters. Moving forward, we need to create more opportunities for meaningful interactions, and ensure these dialogues continue long enough to turn moments of connection into lasting change.