Lea Pradella

In an era marked by increasing hostility between political opponents, engaging in respectful political debates is more important but also more challenging than ever. This dissertation investigates whether empathy — understanding the thoughts and feelings of the other side — enables us to interact with political opponents in a less hostile way, drawing on three articles based on survey experiments conducted on the polarized U.S. public. Article A examines empathy alongside other approaches to dealing with opponents, such as self-advocacy and factual accuracy, demonstrating that empathy reduces hostility and increases agreement. Article B shifts focus to the impact of observing political opponents express empathy. Empathic expressions reduce hostility and increase empathy as well as comfort in discussing with political opponents —but only when expressions of empathy are not accompanied by explicit disagreement. Additionally, the study reveals that empathizing opponents are perceived as more in agreement with one's side and less typical of their party, perceptions that could drive the positive effects of empathy. Article C explores social pressure as a potential barrier to empathizing with political opponents. Contrary to expectations, anticipated backlash from in-partisans does not discourage empathy; rather, it appears to motivate it, potentially driven by disappointment with one's own party. Overall, the dissertation highlights empathy's ability to reduce hostility and promote agreement between opponents but also reveals its limitations when it comes to navigating explicit disagreements. These findings underscore both the potential and limitations of empathy, offering valuable insights on how to navigate less hostile and more constructive political disagreements.

PDF