Effective depolarization interventions target thoughts, relationships, and institutions.

Evidence

Conclusion Partisan animosity is a growing concern in the United States, prompting scientists and practitioners to examine its roots and potential solutions. We have attempted to synthesize this rich and quickly growing body of work. Although reducing partisan animosity may be difficult, we believe that it is useful for researchers and practitioners to ‘TRI’: aim to reduce partisan animosity by changing thoughts, building relationships and transforming institutions. Successful interventions help partisans gain more accurate perceptions of each other and recognize the similarities they share, teach them how to have productive conversations and create the conditions for encouraging cross-party interactions, and attempt to improve public discourse and transform political structures. To enact durable and scalable change, we also encourage practitioners to intervene to motivate and mobilize partisans to become actively involved in reducing partisan animosity. — Rachel Hartman et al., Interventions to Reduce Partisan…, 96

Categorization

• XREF: This is the frame I’ll benchmark against the pessimistic 2025 PNAS depolarization-is-hard paper — the ‘TRI’ taxonomy (thoughts/relationships/institutions) gives the structural contrast to effect-size skepticism. — connects to: Depolarization interventions produce small, decaying effects that fail to scale or shift downstream attitudes — Derek E. Holliday, Yphtach Lelkes, and Sean J. Westwood, Why Depolarization Is Hard: Evaluating…, 18; Durable depolarization requires structural or institutional rather than one-shot interventions — Derek E. Holliday, Yphtach Lelkes, and Sean J. Westwood, Why Depolarization Is Hard: Evaluating…, 50; Participant preparation is a prerequisite for depolarization interventions to work — Rachel Hartman et al., Interventions to Reduce Partisan…, 36 (+7 more)
• ADDENDUM: Connects to my Sacrifice piece’s theme of institutions stabilizing social order — these interventions work at the institutional level too.

Broader Connections

• Deliberation reduces affective polarization but often increases idea-based polarization. #complicates (0.80) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 107
• Four mediating processes link contact to attitude change. #exemplifies (0.80) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 38
• Depolarization requires deliberation framed by deliberative-democracy conditions. #qualifies (0.78) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 136
• Facilitation is a decisive condition for deliberation-induced depolarization. #qualifies (0.75) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 121
• Political psychology studies the reciprocal influence of political institutions and human behavior #expands (0.74) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 91
• Depolarization interventions can succeed while creating unintended harms. #qualifies (0.72)