Empathy as the Key to Healing Political Division: Insights from Psychology

In an era where political divisions feel deeper than ever, it’s easy to become cynical about the possibility of bridging the gap between opposing viewpoints. Heated debates, sensationalist media coverage, and social media echo chambers often reinforce the idea that meaningful dialogue is dead. But a recent Washington Post opinion piece by psychologists Jamil Zaki and Luiza Santos offers a hopeful perspective . Their research suggests that empathy—not aggression—may hold the key to healing political divisions.

How Big of a Problem is Political Polarization?

Political polarization in the United States has become a growing concern, with data showing an increase in ideological divides and hostility between political parties.

1. Ideological Polarization: According to the Pew Research Center, the ideological gap between Republicans and Democrats has widened significantly over the past two decades. In 1994, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat, and 70% of Democrats were more liberal than the median Republican. By 2021, these numbers had increased to 92% and 94%, respectively, reflecting a more polarized electorate. This growing ideological divide means fewer areas of political overlap and more entrenched positions on key issues like immigration, climate change, and healthcare.

2. Affective Polarization: Affective polarization refers to the extent to which people feel more negatively toward the opposing political party. Research from the American National Election Studies (ANES) shows that in 1978, 27% of Americans rated members of the opposite party negatively. By 2020, this number had risen to 52%, indicating that Americans are not just ideologically divided, but emotionally disconnected from each other as well.

3. Perception of the Other Party: Studies show that Americans tend to view members of the opposing party more negatively than they view members of their own party. In a 2019 Pew Research survey, 55% of Republicans viewed Democrats as “immoral,” while 47% of Democrats said the same about Republicans. Moreover, both groups tend to overestimate the extremism of the other side. For example, in a 2022 study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, participants estimated that 45% of their political opponents held extreme views, while the actual percentage was closer to 30%.

4. Media and Social Media Influence: The rise of partisan media outlets and social media platforms has exacerbated polarization. Research published in Science in 2018 found that exposure to partisan news increases ideological conformity, while another study from Princeton University noted that echo chambers on social media platforms reinforce polarized beliefs by limiting exposure to opposing viewpoints.

5. Impact on Trust in Institutions: Polarization is also contributing to declining trust in democratic institutions. Gallup’s data shows that trust in Congress, the presidency, and the media is at historic lows, with only 36% of Americans expressing confidence in these institutions as of 2022. This erosion of trust further fuels division and disengagement from the political process,

The data highlights how polarization is not just about differing political views but also emotional hostility, skewed perceptions of the other side, and the role of media in deepening these divides.

The "Exhausted Majority"

This has all ended in many of us in the "exhausted majority". The “Hidden Tribes” report by More in Common reveals that political polarization in the U.S. is driven primarily by a vocal minority of extremists on both ends of the spectrum , while the majority of Americans, referred to as the “exhausted majority,” are disengaged and feel alienated by the divisive political climate.

This group, which makes up 67% of the population, shares common values and desires for more cooperation, less conflict, and solutions-oriented dialogue. The study emphasizes the potential for bridging divides through understanding and emphasizes the importance of finding common ground.

The Psychology of Polarization

Zaki, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, and Santos, a recent PhD graduate, argue that political division is not only an emotional issue but also one rooted in cognitive distortions—patterns of thought that mirror those seen in depression. Just as people suffering from depression often assume the worst about themselves or others based on little evidence, politically divided individuals make sweeping, often incorrect, assumptions about the other side. These distorted beliefs lead to destructive behaviors, such as hostility, withdrawal from dialogue, and, in some cases, even support for undemocratic actions.

In their study, Zaki and Santos asked Republican and Democratic voters how much they thought the opposing side supported undemocratic practices like gerrymandering and rejecting election results. The participants consistently overestimated the other side’s willingness to bend democratic rules. This misperception led them to believe that if the other party was willing to cheat, their own party should be justified in doing the same. As a result, an atmosphere of mutual distrust and escalation takes hold.

However, the psychologists found that most people, regardless of political affiliation, support fair democratic practices and wish for more cooperation. This disconnect between perception and reality, they argue, is not just unfortunate—it’s an opportunity for change.

Conversations Across Divides: The Role of Empathy

In their experiment, Zaki and Santos brought people with opposing political views together for structured conversations. One such pair, Ben and Emily (whose names were changed for privacy), initially approached their discussion with skepticism. Ben, a Republican gun owner, and Emily, a Democrat opposed to firearms, seemed unlikely to find common ground. But as they shared their personal stories—Ben, a gay man living in a conservative town, and Emily, whose husband had a gun pulled on him during an argument—they began to understand each other in new ways.

This experience was far from unique. The researchers observed that when participants shared personal stories and expressed genuine curiosity about each other’s views, they left the conversation feeling less hostile and more open. In fact, the most common rating for these dialogues was a perfect 100 on a 100-point scale for pleasantness. Despite their initial pessimism, participants found these conversations to be transformative.

Empathy: A Powerful Tool for Persuasion

One of the most compelling insights from the study is the role of empathy in persuasion. People who empathize during disagreements are not only better able to see the other person’s point of view, but they are also more likely to change the other person’s mind. This doesn’t mean hiding your own perspective—it means sharing it in a way that invites dialogue rather than combat. Empathy encourages a two-way exchange where both parties feel heard and respected.

Zaki and Santos suggest that empathy-driven conversations can be a form of “cognitive behavior therapy” (CBT) for political division. In CBT, patients are encouraged to challenge their distorted beliefs by gathering new data. Similarly, when people engage in political dialogue with empathy, they collect new information that often challenges their initial assumptions about the other side.

Overcoming the ‘Conflict Entrepreneurs’

A major barrier to healing political divides, the psychologists note, is what they call “conflict entrepreneurs.” These are individuals and institutions—such as certain media outlets and political leaders—who profit from stoking fear and contempt between political parties. By painting the opposing side as violent, extreme, and dangerous, these actors create an atmosphere of perpetual hostility.

Yet, the research shows that these extreme views are not representative of most Americans. More than 80 percent of those surveyed regret the deep division in the country and yearn for greater cooperation. By engaging in empathy-driven dialogue, individuals can break the cycle of fear and misunderstanding perpetuated by conflict entrepreneurs and reclaim a more hopeful narrative.

A Path Forward

Zaki and Santos’ work highlights that political division, while deeply entrenched, is not insurmountable. By applying psychological principles, particularly empathy and cognitive behavior strategies, we can begin to break down the walls that divide us. The key is to approach political conversations with curiosity and an open mind, recognizing that most people want the same things: peace, freedom, and cooperation.

If we can shift our thinking and start having more of these meaningful, empathy-based conversations, the future of our democracy might not be as bleak as it sometimes seems. As the psychologists suggest, the real tragedy isn’t that division exists—it’s that so few of us realize how much we share in common.

As long as we remain trapped in cycles of hostility and misinformation, political division will continue to deepen. But by focusing on empathy, we may be able to see past our differences and find the common ground necessary for a more unified, cooperative society.

Conclusion

Empathy is more than just a nice-to-have quality in political conversations—it’s a powerful tool for change. By fostering understanding, reducing hostility, and encouraging persuasion, empathy-driven dialogue can help us transcend the polarized landscape we find ourselves in today. In a world where conflict entrepreneurs thrive on division, it’s time to turn the tables and create a movement for cooperation and understanding.

The future of our democracy depends on it.

If you liked this, then read this

If you liked this research and article, you could read Hope for Cynics, a new book by Jamil Zaki. Below is a quick overview of the book.

Jamil Zaki’s Hope for Cynics presents a compelling case for overcoming cynicism by embracing “hopeful skepticism.” Zaki, a Stanford psychologist, acknowledges that cynicism is a natural response to societal challenges, such as inequality and injustice. However, he argues that it often distorts our view of humanity, making us overlook the inherent goodness in people.

The book highlights three myths that fuel cynicism: the belief that cynics are smarter, safer, and more moral. Zaki’s research shows that these assumptions are misguided and that cynicism can lead to negative personal and societal outcomes, including increased loneliness and decreased career success.

Instead, Zaki advocates for hopeful skepticism, which involves remaining critical of systems and people while recognizing that trust and cooperation are often rewarded. This approach, he argues, can enhance relationships, communities, and institutions by fostering resilience and amplifying the positive aspects of human nature. Rather than promoting blind optimism, hopeful skepticism encourages thoughtful engagement with the world, helping us build a better future.

Through a combination of personal insights and scientific research, Hope for Cynics challenges readers to move beyond their cynicism and reclaim faith in humanity’s potential for kindness and collaboration.