Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37604989›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2023

Reducing political polarization in the United States with a mobile chat platform.

Aidan Combs, Graham Tierney, Brian Guay, Friedolin Merhout, Christopher A Bail, D Sunshine Hillygus, Alexander Volfovsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Aidan Combs *Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Graham Tierney *Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Brian GuayDepartment of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6734-1991
Friedolin MerhoutDepartment of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3703-7651
Christopher A BailDepartment of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5310-2372
D Sunshine HillygusSanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9057-3344
Alexander VolfovskyDepartment of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. alexander.volfovsky@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4462-1020

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Do anonymous online conversations between people with different political views exacerbate or mitigate partisan polarization? We created a mobile chat platform to study the impact of such discussions. Our study recruited Republicans and Democrats in the United States to complete a survey about their political views. We later randomized them into treatment conditions where they were offered financial incentives to use our platform to discuss a contentious policy issue with an opposing partisan. We found that people who engage in anonymous cross-party conversations about political topics exhibit substantial decreases in polarization compared with a placebo group that wrote an essay using the same conversation prompts. Moreover, these depolarizing effects were correlated with the civility of dialogue between study participants. Our findings demonstrate the potential for well-designed social media platforms to mitigate political polarization and underscore the need for a flexible platform for scientific research on social media.

Indexed as

PoliticsSocial MediaCommunicationHumansMotivationSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.