Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Social Norms and Scalability Benefits of Non-Dialogue Options To Improve Politics

Opinion

In a previous article in The Fulcrum, we argued that interpersonal communication is a – not the only – way to reduce perceived political divides. Today, we highlight a group of researchers who noted that methods beyond interpersonal communication may actually be more effective.

We do not want a “competition” between different techniques. Rather, we seek alignment that recognizes the value of methods other than interpersonal communication in efforts to reduce perceived political divides, especially in terms of scale. Both interpersonal and other options (e.g., observing others across the political spectrum interact productively) should be utilized. Overblown perceptions of political divides are sometimes referred to as “Perception Gaps,” a term coined by the organization More in Common.


The researchers we highlight claimed that both in-person interpersonal communication (which they referred to as direct contact) and various other methods (which they referred to as indirect contact) can improve emotions and attitudes toward individuals in another group. However, they noted that because some forms of indirect contact can reach many more people, they can more easily change social norms than small-group or one-on-one direct contact.

In the 2021 academic journal article “Beyond Direct Contact: The Theoretical and Societal Relevance of Indirect Contact for Improving Intergroup Relations,” social psychologist Fiona White and a half-dozen other researchers examined the distinction between direct and indirect contact in fostering positive intergroup relations. Both direct and indirect contact are branches of contact theory, which suggests that meaningful interaction between groups under the right conditions can reduce intergroup hostility and increase mutual understanding. This journal article is central to the field, part of a special issue on transforming society through intergroup contact, and has been cited over 180 times.

In the field to correct political Perception Gaps, direct contact has been considered the default means of reducing prejudice. Yet academic researchers have been open to a wider variety of approaches.

In their article, White et al. outlined various forms of direct contact, including structured intergroup dialogues, workshops, collaborative activities, and facilitated conversations. While these methods are effective under optimal conditions, the authors emphasized that direct contact was often limited by structural barriers, such as segregation, existing social tensions, or logistical challenges of reaching thousands or even millions of people through small-scale opportunities.

White et al. argued that indirect contact was not merely a substitute for direct methods but offered unique advantages, particularly in its ability to scale, shift social norms, and reach individuals who might otherwise resist engagement. They outlined several key forms of indirect contact that had emerged in research, each offering distinct pathways to improving intergroup relations. Below are forms of indirect contact that the authors covered:

  • Extended contact leverages existing relationships, in which knowing that an ingroup member had a friendship with an outgroup member can shift attitudes by association.
  • Vicarious contact allows individuals to observe positive interactions between groups, often through media or storytelling, reinforcing the idea that intergroup cooperation is both possible and beneficial.
  • Imagined contact operates through mental simulation, encouraging individuals to visualize a positive exchange with an outgroup member, which can reduce anxiety and improve attitudes toward real-life interactions.
  • Parasocial contact occurs through one-sided relationships with outgroup members as portrayed in media, such as television, films, or social media influencers, subtly shaping perceptions over time without requiring direct engagement.

Finally, White et al. considered “e-contact” that utilizes digital platforms to facilitate structured intergroup communication as a form of indirect contact; however, because it typically involves 1:1 or small group interactions, it blurs the clear distinction between direct and indirect contact.

Both direct and indirect contact have been shown to reduce affective polarization—that is, the emotional hostility people feel toward members of the opposing political party—and to improve intergroup attitudes more broadly. While they operate through different formats, both approaches appear to help by reducing anxiety and fostering empathy across group lines. Direct contact enables personal, real-world interactions that foster mutual understanding.

In comparison, many of the indirect contact options described above can normalize more inclusive attitudes at scale. Indirect contact may not have the depth of face-to-face engagement, but its wide reach allows it to reinforce positive norms and help shift public perceptions in meaningful ways.

The authors posited that a major strength of indirect contact is its ability to influence social norms, in addition to improving individual-level affect between groups. While direct contact is largely constrained to small-scale interactions, various forms of indirect contact can be disseminated widely through various media and institutional structures. White et al. also emphasized the importance of social norms (collective expectations about behavior) in shaping intergroup attitudes. By making positive intergroup interactions more visible and normalized, indirect contact can lead to broad societal changes that direct contact alone may struggle to achieve.

While acknowledging the need for more research on the long-term persistence of indirect contact effects, White et al. argued that indirect contact was not merely a substitute for direct contact, but also a valuable intervention in its own right. They proposed that future efforts to reduce intergroup prejudice should integrate both direct and indirect approaches, leveraging the strengths of each to create lasting social change. And given the added ability of indirect contact to change social norms at scale, they believed that indirect contact might even have benefits over direct contact.

James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org

Imre Huss is a current intern at More Like US.

Read More

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less
Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

As political violence threatens democracy, defending free speech, limiting government overreach, and embracing pluralism matters is critical right now.

Getty Images, Javier Zayas Photography

The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

The assassinations of conservative leader Charlie Kirk and Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota have triggered endorsements of violence and even calls for literal war on both the far right and far left. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence, but all of us are in a fight to keep our diverse and boisterous brand of democracy alive. Doing so requires a renewed commitment to pluralism and a clear-headed recognition of the limits of government, especially when proposals entail using the criminal justice system to punish speech.

Pluralism has been called the lifeblood of a democracy like ours, in which being an American is not defined by race or religion. It requires learning about and accepting our differences, and embracing the principle that, regardless of them, every person is entitled to be protected by our Constitution and have a voice in how we’re governed. In contrast, many perpetrators of political violence rationalize their acts by denying the basic humanity of those with whom they disagree. They are willing to face the death penalty or life in prison in an attempt to force everyone to conform to their views.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

The SVL (Stories, Values, Listen) framework—which aims to bridge political divides with simple, memorable steps for productive cross-partisan conversations—is an easy-to-use tool for making an impact at scale.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Make Talking Politics Easier and More Scalable: Be SVL (Stories, Values, Listen)

How can one have a productive conversation across the political spectrum?

We offer simple, memorable guidance: Be SVL (pronounced like “civil”). SVL stands for sharing Stories, relating to a conversation partner’s Values, and closely Listening.

Keep ReadingShow less