Heightened political polarization has made Americans frustrated at the mere thought of debate. Many see it as unproductive – what is the point of two people with different points of view trying to find consensus when both sides are often left feeling like they engaged in a conflict, rather than a conversation. Social media platforms like X, TikTok, and Facebook seem to have only exacerbated this feeling.
While this sentiment might be common, the truth is a bit more optimistic — most debate takes place in-person between close friends, family members, and coworkers. Additionally, this in-person debate has the added benefit of leaving participants with a more positive outlook. This misperception is the subject of new research from Modupe Akinola, the Barbara and David Zalaznick Professor of Business, and Sheena Iyengar, the S. T. Lee Professor of Business, at Columbia Business School.
Along with their coauthors, UC Berkeley Professor Erica Bailey and CBS Ph.D. candidate Mike White, the researchers found that Americans often misperceive not only the frequency and format of political debate. Their findings were published in the journal, Nature.
“We have a misperception of the landscape of debate in the US,” says Akinola. “When we overestimate how much debate happens we feel more helpless, more hopeless about the future.”
Across three studies of nearly 3,000 Americans, the researchers found that people most commonly debate with their close friends and family members, in addition to coworkers and acquaintances. Their research also showed that people often report positive feelings after engaging in debate.
They presented participants with a list of 20 high profile debate topics, from reproductive rights and animal testing to climate change and gun control, and asked them to indicate whether they have had a debate on that topic in the last year. Participants were also given the option of “Other” with an open text box to capture debate topics not featured in the list.
In another survey of nearly 2,000 Americans, the researchers discovered that people systematically overestimate how often others debate, especially in terms of context — Americans often believe the majority of debate takes place online, when in reality it takes place in-person.
Akinola shared the findings from her and her coauthors’ research, shedding light on how, where, and what Americans are debating.
Columbia Business School: Through your study, how did you come to understand that many Americans misperceive the frequency and format of debate?
Professor Modupe Akinola: In our study, we had people recall the last debate that they were aware of and whether it was online or in-person, and how they felt. We found that most people recalled an online debate and they felt negative, so in our next set of studies we wanted to better understand the true types of debates that people have.
Interestingly, we found that, yes, some of the debate topics were high profile, however people weren’t always debating those. They were debating other, low profile topics. Not only that, they were typically debating with family members or close friends, not necessarily debating online. When we asked them how they felt, they felt positive after having these debates, counter to this idea that we think negatively about our debates and that we're always debating online.
CBS: How exactly are Americans misperceiving the state of political debate, and how does that fit into our recent elections?
Akinola: In one of our final studies that we ran, we looked at whether people predict or mispredict how much people are debating. We had two categories of people, those who had actually experienced debates and those who were predicting the number of debates people actually experienced.
We found that people over predicted the number of debates that people actually have. Plus, when people over predicted, they felt more hopeless about the future. This is an important factor, because one of the key elements of the 2020 elections was that people felt very hopeless.
So, if we’re overestimating the extent to which people debate, and that overestimation makes us feel more hopeless, then when we have greater clarity on the reality that people aren't always debating online or on social media, then maybe that helps restore hope in this idea of elections in general. That might shape election behavior and voting.
CBS: How do your findings contribute to healing political division?
Akinola: Our studies are preliminary and the findings are correlational. But the one thing we can start doing is reminding people of the reality, which is that not all debates are negative or leave you feeling negative.
If you keep reminding people of the truth, then they won't have these false realities, which might shape more productive dialogue. Over time, more productive debates do indeed lead to people feeling more positive, which was the case in the participants.
Editor’s note: This interview was conducted prior to the 2024 United States presidential election.
