In the contemporary landscape of American politics, the nature of partisan conflict has escalated far beyond mere disagreement. What once might have been robust debate grounded in policy differences now frequently manifests as vitriolic hostility between political factions. The rhetoric is increasingly harsh, with parties not only criticizing but actively demonizing each other, often blaming their rivals for broad societal issues or national crises. Such polarized discourse undermines democratic processes and social cohesion, but more importantly, it raises a critical question: can efforts to reduce partisan animosity actually succeed?
A groundbreaking study, recently published in the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, explores this very issue by systematically examining previous attempts to alleviate political polarization—often referred to as “partisan animosity.” The research, conducted by the Polarization Research Lab, involving political scientists from both Dartmouth College and the University of Pennsylvania, offers a comprehensive meta-analytic overview of various interventions designed to bridge the political divide. The implications of their findings resonate far beyond academic circles, posing urgent challenges and questions for policymakers, educators, and civic actors alike.
The meta-analysis synthesized data from 25 distinct studies encompassing a total of 77 separate intervention strategies aimed at diminishing hostility between supporters of opposing parties. These interventions ranged widely and included informational efforts such as correcting false beliefs about political opponents, encouraging interpersonal dialogue across party lines, and calls from political leaders for greater civility in public discourse. Despite the diversity of these approaches, the collective results reveal a strikingly limited level of success. On average, individuals exposed to these treatments showed only a modest 5.3% improvement in their feelings toward the rival party.
Even more disheartening is the temporal nature of these effects. The research team found that approximately 75% of the initial reductions in partisan animosity fade within a mere week of intervention. By the two-week mark, the residual impact is virtually negligible, indicating that these efforts fail to produce meaningful, lasting change in political attitudes. This durability issue represents a critical obstacle, as transient improvements do not translate into sustained shifts in public opinion or political behavior.
The challenge, it appears, is not simply the scale or intensity of interventions but also the systemic context in which they operate. Senior researcher Sean Westwood, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, highlights that political and media ecosystems inherently reward outrage and division, thereby perpetuating hostile attitudes. “Any individual-level effort to depolarize is up against a powerful, unending tide,” Westwood explains. This suggests that depolarization efforts may flounder unless they address the deeper structural incentives that fuel partisan strife, including media sensationalism and political leaders’ strategies for mobilizing bases through antagonism.
To further probe the efficacy of intervention strategies, the research team conducted two large-scale field experiments involving thousands of participants. One experiment tested the hypothesis that stacking multiple intervention techniques—exposing individuals to several treatments simultaneously—might amplify positive outcomes. The other evaluated whether repeated exposure to the same interventions over time, dubbed a “booster shot,” could extend the longevity of improved sentiments toward opposing party members. Both experimental conditions, however, failed to generate significantly greater or more durable reductions in partisan hostility than single, isolated treatments.
These null findings underscore the complexity of political attitudes and the limits of currently deployed depolarization tactics. The ineffectiveness of “flooding” the public with interventions or repeatedly exhorting civility challenges common prescriptive wisdom. The simplistic model that more exposure inevitably leads to attitudinal change does not hold in this domain. Instead, the study suggests that any meaningful resolution to entrenched polarization must engage broader social and institutional reforms.
The researchers argue that addressing partisan animosity necessitates a dual approach: structural transformation at the elite and systemic levels combined with grassroots efforts to cultivate civic skills among citizens. Political elites and media institutions must reform incentive structures that currently reward conflict, such as sensationalist coverage and aggressive campaigning strategies. Simultaneously, democratic societies require that citizens acquire and practice principles of civil discourse, empathetic engagement, and critical thinking that enable constructive dialogue despite ideological divides.
This emphasis on structural and educational reforms challenges the notion that social media campaigns, brief corrective information, or episodic dialogue sessions can suffice. Achieving deep and durable depolarization particularly depends on embedding the values and skills of respectful communication and democratic participation within education systems from an early age. As Westwood notes, “The future of our democracy depends on it.” Such long-term investments in social capital, empathy, and political literacy may ultimately lay the foundation for a healthier political environment.
The study’s findings also resonate with emerging research in social psychology and political communication, which consistently reveal the resilience of partisan identities and the psychological underpinnings of motivated reasoning. Partisan animosity is not simply an opinion that can be changed with facts or appeals to reason; it is intertwined with personal identity, group loyalty, and emotional investment. This complexity limits the potential of superficial or short-lived interventions.
Moreover, the study invites a reconsideration of how democratic societies conceptualize political conflict. If antagonism between parties is normalized or institutionalized, its reduction may require bipartisan cooperation at the highest levels as well as cultural shifts that de-emphasize partisan grievances. Initiatives to cultivate genuine dialogue, though difficult and resource-intensive, emerge from this research as uniquely promising, albeit challenging to scale up. Sustained, reciprocal engagement between members of opposing parties holds the potential to slowly erode mistrust and animosity, suggesting a path forward grounded in human connection rather than political strategizing.
In sum, while the hope for quick fixes to America’s deepening political divisions may be alluring, the evidence presented by this comprehensive study signals caution and humility. The pervasive and persistent nature of partisan animosity demands multifaceted, systemic solutions informed by rigorous research and civic commitment. Without such changes, the social fabric of democratic governance risks further unraveling under the weight of ongoing conflict and distrust.
The work, a collaboration among scholars including Derek Holliday of The George Washington University and Yphtach Lelkes of the University of Pennsylvania, offers a compelling yet sobering perspective on the urgent challenge of depolarization. By rigorously testing and questioning the efficacy of prevailing interventions, it pushes the conversation beyond mere anecdote and toward evidence-based strategies. The ultimate message is clear: combating polarization is, and must remain, a collective societal endeavor extending from classrooms to legislatures, media platforms, and community spaces.
—
Subject of Research: Political polarization and interventions to reduce partisan animosity in the United States
Article Title: Why Depolarization is Hard: Evaluating Attempts to Decrease Partisan Animosity in America
News Publication Date: 22-Sep-2025
Web References:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2508827122
References: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025, meta-analysis and experimental studies on depolarization interventions
Keywords: Political science, Government, Public policy, Education, Mass media, News media, Social media, Public opinion, Social psychology, Political communication
