Physical contact humanizes opponents and enables depolarization

Evidence

Even though we should be careful when interpreting the results, they do show a pattern: studies in which the participants are not physically confronted with each other more often report polarization (42.9%) than depolarization (35.7%). Among the face-to-face studies, these numbers are the inverse (41.2% reports depolarization vs. 31.3% reports polarization). Non-physical contact thus seems to increase, rather than decrease, conflict and polarization, which lends support to the humanization theory and the intergroup contact theory. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 123

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly relevant to the ‘belonging vs. independent judgment’ question: physical/corporeal presence appears to carry some of the burden of keeping deliberation from dissolving into polarization — worth tracking through the depolarization chapters.
• XREF: connects to: Facilitation is a decisive condition for deliberation-induced depolarization. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 121; Eye contact functions as the equivalent of physical proximity — Lyn H. Lofland, World of Strangers_ Order and Action in…, 1198; Even optimally structured contact changes some people not at all — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 93 (+9 more)

Broader Connections

• Enforced physical proximity to strangers generates mutual consideration #corroborates (0.95) — Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing, 449
• Eye contact functions as the equivalent of physical proximity #expands (0.90) — Lyn H. Lofland, World of Strangers_ Order and Action in…, 1198
• Eye contact functions as a form of physical proximity between strangers. #expands (0.90)
• Decategorized contact reduces bias but fails to generalize beyond the individual #complicates (0.88) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 559
• Even optimally structured contact changes some people not at all #qualifies (0.85) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 93
• Friendship potential is a necessary fifth condition for generalizing contact effects #qualifies (0.82) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 81
• Facilitation is a decisive condition for deliberation-induced depolarization. #qualifies (0.80) — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization, 121
• Genuine reciprocity requires mutual tension and shared attention between two participants #expands (0.78) — Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass, 14
• Synchronous movement increases trust and cooperation while reducing freeriding #corroborates (0.75)
• Small concentrated encounters keep participants’ plurality intact and generate power #complicates (0.75) — Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing, 598
• Hearing functions as touch at a distance and fosters sociability #corroborates (0.72) — Schafer, Murray R, The Soundscape- Our Sonic Environment…, 42
• Decategorization predicts contact works when group salience is minimized #complicates (0.70) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1808