New York, NY – Political debates and discussions have become a significant aspect of our lives, expanding beyond traditional methods like conversations around the kitchen table, to a salient part of social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). Particularly during an election year, the increased emphasis on politics can create the impression that discussions are more polarized or contentious than they may actually be. New research challenges this perception by providing a reality check on Americans' beliefs about political discussions. Contrary to popular belief, Columbia Business School Professors Modupe Akinola and Sheena Iyengar found that most political debates occur among family and friends rather than with strangers on social media and many debate topics end in positive feelings as opposed to negative ones. Their findings show that debate may be more civil and constructive than often perceived, and this misperception may contribute to broader despair about the political climate in the United States.
The new research, Americans Misperceive the Frequency and Format of Political Debate, published in Scientific Reports and authored by Modupe Akinola, the Barbara and David Zalaznick Professor of Business, Sheena Iyengar, the S. T. Lee Professor of Business, UC Berkeley Professor Erica R. Bailey, and Columbia Business School doctoral student Michael W. White ’25, ran three studies across nearly 3,000 participants. In the first study, 282 online participants were asked to recall their last debate and how they felt afterward. About half of them described observing online debates, which tended to be more negative. In the second study, they recruited 741 participants from Amazon mTurk and a behavioral science lab, and asked them about topics they recently debated, who they debated with, and how they felt afterward. The study found that most discussions occurred among family and friends, with popular topics including reproductive rights and vaccines. Many people felt positive after these debates, showing that the conversations were constructive. Finally, researchers sampled around 2,000 Americans recruited from Prolific Academic to examine whether individuals accurately predict the frequency of debates. Participants were randomly assigned to report their experience of debate (“experiencers”) or their perceptions of the debates they thought the average American had (“perceivers”). The study found that perceivers tended to overestimate the experiencers’ occurrence of debates, particularly online debates with strangers. This misperception was psychologically costly, correlated with a sense of hopelessness. Overall, they found that the “typical” debate is very different than two strangers typing at one another behind their computer screens.
As we look ahead to the 2024 presidential elections, it's crucial to emphasize the significance of engaging in personal discussions with friends and family. This research highlights the importance of investing in these face-to-face conversations, which may help foster a more positive outlook on political discourse, alongside online interactions. The authors encourage future researchers to observe debates as they naturally occur in everyday environments and capture a more accurate picture of how people tend to engage in discussions.
Watch the video of Professor Akinola discussing the research. To learn more about cutting-edge research being conducted, please visit Columbia Business School.
###
