The Science Behind Curiosity: How It Can Solve Political Polarization and Conflict

Political polarization is a defining feature of today’s social landscape. It’s increasingly rare to find spaces where individuals with opposing political views engage in constructive, empathetic dialogue. Instead, political debates often devolve into arguments where participants dig deeper into their respective positions.

Curiosity, one of our most powerful tools for understanding the world around us, seems absent in these exchanges. But why is curiosity so important for solving political polarization, and why does it feel so hard to be curious in the heat of conflict?

To answer these questions, we're going to take a ride on the proverbial Magic Schoolbus through the psychological and neurological processes that govern how we experience disagreement and stress.

As the Friz says, "seatbelts everyone!"

What's the deal with curiosity?

At its core, curiosity is about the desire to learn and understand something new. In the context of political polarization, curiosity can help us move beyond the surface-level arguments that dominate political discourse and dig deeper into the underlying values, experiences, and emotions that shape our opinions.

According to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, political beliefs are often grounded in moral intuitions—instinctive reactions to what we perceive as right or wrong (Haidt, 2012). These intuitions are shaped by our upbringing, cultural environment, and personal experiences, creating the foundation for our political views. When we engage with others from different political backgrounds, curiosity allows us to explore how their unique moral intuitions came to be. It opens the door to understanding perspectives that, at first glance, seem completely opposed to our own.

Research from neuroscience adds another layer of understanding. Lisa Feldman Barrett’s Constructed Emotion theory explains that emotions are not automatic, but rather built by our brains based on past experiences (Barrett, 2017). When we encounter a political view that contradicts our own, our brain pulls from past emotional experiences, often triggering a defensive reaction. But curiosity can short-circuit this automatic response by encouraging us to lean into the discomfort and ask, “Why do they believe that?” rather than dismissing or attacking their perspective.

This openness to learning about others’ views doesn’t just improve the quality of our conversations—it can actively reduce polarization. Research suggests that when people engage in dialogue characterized by curiosity and empathy, they are more likely to shift away from extreme positions (Broockman & Kalla, 2016).

In this sense, curiosity serves as an antidote to polarization by fostering mutual understanding and breaking down the emotional barriers that fuel conflict.

So, this begs the question...

Why Is It So Hard to Be Curious in the Midst of Conflict?

There are several reasons that curiosity feels out of arms' reach during conflict, but there are a select few that do the majority of the polarizing work. Specifically, our stress response, our mistaken beliefs, and the level of psychological and social safety in the environment.

The Brain’s Stress Response: Fight, Flight, or… Curiosity?

When we enter a conflict, whether in politics or personal life, our body automatically assesses the situation and decides whether to initiate a threat stress response or a challenge stress response. That's right, we don't just have a fight/flight/freeze response (also known as threat). We have a second healthier and empowering stress response called challenge (McGonigal, 2015).

How we interpret the demands of the situation plays a key role in this process. If we believe that the conflict is overwhelming or beyond our ability to handle it, the brain activates the threat stress response, leading to heightened anxiety, avoidance, or aggressive confrontation. This makes it difficult to stay open and curious.

However, if we perceive the situation as one where we have the resources to engage and manage the conflict, our body is more likely to trigger a challenge response. This type of stress reaction, though still activating stress hormones, is much more energizing and motivating. It fosters openness to learning and a willingness to engage with the problem, which is crucial for staying curious and finding solutions (Jamieson et al., 2013).

A critical factor in whether we view a conflict as a threat or a challenge lies in how we perceive the people involved. When we see the other person as an adversary or part of the problem, our brain reacts with defensiveness, and curiosity takes a back seat. But if we can reframe the situation, viewing the other person as a partner in solving a shared issue, their role shifts from being part of the threat to being a resource with whom we can join. This increases the likelihood of a challenge response, making it easier to stay curious and collaborative.

In politically polarized situations, this dynamic plays out frequently. For example, when discussing divisive topics, we often see those with opposing viewpoints as enemies. This perception primes our brain to prepare for conflict and defensiveness. However, if we approach the same discussion with the belief that the other person is a collaborator with whom we can explore shared goals—such as improving healthcare or strengthening democracy—their perspective becomes part of the solution.

Jeremy Jamieson's findings highlight how critical this shift is. When we see the other party as a partner rather than an opponent, our body is more likely to initiate a challenge response, allowing us to stay engaged, learn from the situation, and work towards productive outcomes. What's more, this shift in our mindset creates a compounding effect where each positive experience builds upon the next, thus reinforcing our ability to remain curious and collaborative.

Mistaken Beliefs: The Psychological Barriers to Curiosity

Another challenge to curiosity in conflict is what Alfred Adler referred to as mistaken beliefs. As we've discussed in previous newsletters, these are conscious and unconscious assumptions that we hold about how people "should" be, what we "shouldn't" do, and how we have been taught to meet our needs for significance, security, and belonging (Adler, 1956).

These assumptions about ourselves and others can often drive conflict. In politically charged conversations, mistaken beliefs can manifest as stereotypes or reductivistic assumptions about the other side—“They don’t care about people like me” or “They’re too ignorant to understand the facts.”

Mistaken beliefs routinely create psychological walls that prevent us from engaging with curiosity. After all, why would we bother trying to understand someone we’ve already written off as morally bankrupt or intellectually dishonest?

To combat this, we need to actively challenge our assumptions and approach political conversations with the understanding that everyone’s beliefs are shaped by their unique life experiences. This shift in perspective can open the door to empathy and mutual respect, making curiosity possible.

Social and Psychological Safety: Creating the Conditions for Curiosity

Curiosity thrives in environments where people feel safe—psychologically, socially, and physically. As we discussed in the last edition of The Ripple Effect newsletter, this sense of safety is often absent in politically polarized exchanges. People may fear judgment, backlash, or even being ostracized by their affiliated group if they express curiosity about opposing viewpoints. Without psychological safety, individuals are less likely to take the risk of asking genuine questions or exploring ideas that challenge their own.

Psychological safety, a concept popularized by Amy Edmondson (1999), refers to the belief that one can speak up, ask questions, or admit mistakes without fear of negative consequences. In politically polarized environments, creating psychological safety is crucial for fostering curiosity. When people know they won’t be attacked for asking questions or admitting uncertainty, they’re more likely to engage in the kind of open, curious dialogue that can reduce polarization.

Leaders, community organizers, and even individuals in everyday conversations can create spaces of psychological safety by modeling vulnerability, encouraging diverse perspectives, and framing political discussions as opportunities for learning rather than debates to be won. We can see this work in action through the work of bipartisan organizations dedicated to reducing political polarization like Living Room Conversations, National Institute for Civil Discourse, Listen First Project, and Braver Angels.

For example, during Braver Angels' Red/Blue workshops, individuals from opposing political backgrounds are encouraged to ask open-ended questions about each other’s values, experiences, and beliefs. These questions are framed not to challenge or debate, but to learn. Participants often report that by the end of these sessions, they feel less animosity and more empathy toward the other side—even if their political positions haven’t changed.

The success of these workshops underscores the power of curiosity in bridging divides. By creating a psychologically safe space for individuals to engage with genuine curiosity, Braver Angels helps participants see the humanity behind opposing viewpoints, weakening the emotional intensity of political polarization.

Cultivating Curiosity to Overcome Political Polarization

Curiosity is one of the most powerful tools we have for overcoming political polarization, but it’s also one of the most challenging practices to maintain in the midst of conflict. The stress response, mistaken beliefs, and lack of psychological safety all conspire to shut down curiosity, making it difficult to ask the questions that could lead to greater understanding.

However, by reframing stress as an opportunity for growth, challenging our assumptions, and fostering environments of psychological safety, we can make it easier to stay curious—even in the heat of political conflict. And when we do, we open the door to empathy, understanding, and the possibility of reducing the political divides that dominate our world.

References

Adler, A. (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: A Systematic Presentation in Selections from His Writings. Basic Books.

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Broockman, D. E., & Kalla, J. L. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220-224.

Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716-733.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books.

Jamieson, J. P., Mendes, W. B., Blackstock, E., & Schmader, T. (2013). Turning the knots in your stomach into bows: Reappraising arousal improves performance on the GRE. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 630-638.

McGonigal, K. (2015). The upside of stress: Why stress is good for you, and how to get good at it. Avery.