Recent research published in political psychology Our results suggest that short-term psychological interventions may reduce hostile attitudes between opposing political groups. Scientists have found that by exposing people to surprising facts that make them question their political stereotypes, individuals on both the political left and right become more tolerant of their rivals. The findings provide evidence that a simple exercise in reconsidering our own certainties could help defuse rising political tensions.
Political polarization and intolerance are increasing in many democracies around the world. This growing inequality is often accompanied by acts of violence and hostility directed against individuals based on their political affiliation. Opposing groups tend to dehumanize each other, viewing their rivals as serious threats to democracy itself.
In Germany, this rivalry is particularly intense between the two main political factions. Members of the left-wing Green Party and the right-wing Alternative for Germany party are the most frequent targets of politically motivated hostility and violence. The Alternative for Germany party advocates strict immigration policies and is being monitored by some intelligence agencies as an extremist group.
The Green Party focuses on environmental protection and social liberalism and is at the opposite end of the political spectrum. The researchers wanted to explore ways to alleviate this particular brand of mutual hatred. They had previously used a technique called metacognitive training to ease tensions between different religious groups and opposing political parties in the United States.
Metacognitive training is an approach originally developed to help treat mental health conditions by planting seeds of doubt in overly rigid or false beliefs. The scientists wanted to see if this method could also defuse the extreme political rivalry within Germany.
“We have previously conducted research on rising tensions between different religions and between Democrats and Republicans, and were able to use the same methods to reduce hostility in those situations. This study was therefore a natural next step,” said study author Steffen Moritz, head of the Neuropsychology and Psychotherapy Research Unit at Hamburg University Medical Center.
For the new study, researchers recruited 1,025 adult German citizens for an online study. The sample included a variety of ages and education levels. Approximately 69 percent of participants identified as left-wing voters and 13 percent identified as right-wing voters. The scientists first measured participants’ basic political views before introducing new information.
Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their level of political hostility towards the Greens and the Alternative for Germany party. They answered four-point questions about their lack of compassion for political opponents and support for violence against opposing party members. Participants also rated how democratic or authoritarian they thought each political party was.
Next, participants completed a metacognitive training intervention. The researchers presented them with 12 deceptively simple questions designed to elicit common stereotypes about opposing political factions. For example, questions are designed to make left-wing voters assume the worst about right-wing politicians, and vice versa.
After answering each question, participants had to rate how confident they were in their answer, ranging from guessing to being completely sure. As a result of the survey, the correct answer was revealed. These correct answers provided factual information that directly contradicted the common stereotypes that participants relied on.
This process of realizing that you are very confident but the facts are wrong is intended to induce a sense of doubt and surprise. After confirming their correct answers, participants took the political hostility questionnaire again. The researchers then compared pre- and post-scores to look for measurable attitude changes.
The findings suggest that this short-term intervention was successful in reducing hostility between the two political camps. Left-wing voters showed improved attitudes toward right-wing parties. By the same token, right-wing voters showed less hostility toward left-wing parties.
“We expected less change for the right-wing AfD than for the Green Party, which is ostracized in Germany as a Nazi party,” Moritz told Cypost. “In Germany, the word ‘Nazi’ effectively ends any discussion and thereby also the freedom to change or reconsider one’s political position. So we debated for a long time whether we should do such a thing at all.”
This intervention not only reduced general hostility but also changed participants’ views of the opposition’s commitment to democracy. Both left- and right-wing voters rated their political opponents as more democratic after completing the training. This effect was particularly pronounced among right-wing voters, who significantly improved their democratic ratings of the Green Party.
Scientists noted that this intervention is most effective for very specific groups of people. Participants who reported an incorrect answer but had the highest confidence in their incorrect answer showed the greatest improvement in attitude. This suggests that the experience of being completely certain but obviously wrong can help unravel rigid political beliefs.
“Using very simple techniques that involve humor and surprise, you can communicate outside your own bubble and weaken even hostile attitudes,” says Moritz. “Importantly, we should not try to educate only one side. Bridges can only be built by addressing both sides.”
Although the findings support optimism, the researchers highlighted potential misconceptions that should be avoided. They noted that although this training was based on clinical psychiatric treatment, political extremism is not a mental disorder.
“While paranoia and political extremism share an important characteristic of overconfidence, the latter should not be mistaken for a mental disorder,” Moritz explained. “In this study, we used MCTs, so to speak, off-label.”
This study also has some limitations that indicate directions for future research. This experiment did not include control group participants who participated in the study without receiving any intervention. Without a control group, it is difficult to completely exclude the possibility that attitudes will naturally shift towards the middle during the course of the study.
The sample was also somewhat unbalanced, with far more left-wing voters than right-wing voters. The researchers suggest that future studies should track changes over longer periods of time to see how long the peaceful effects last. It also recommends measuring actual behavior, such as voting or donating to political causes, rather than relying strictly on self-reported emotions.
Finally, the scientists raised ethical considerations for future applications of this research. Although reducing hostility is generally positive, researchers must ensure that their interventions do not invite inadvertent sympathy for groups that actually engage in illegal or violent behavior. Ultimately, scientists hope to test this intervention in a real-world setting.
“Follow-up studies and further adaptation to real-life situations, for example at school, are needed,” says Moritz. “Now we have to get out of the ivory tower.”
The study, “Bridging the Divide: Using Metacognitive Training to Reduce Hostility between the Political Left and Right,” was authored by Steffen Moritz, Lisa Borgmann, Tanya M. Fritz, Anja S. Goeritz, and Klaus-Michael Reiner.
