Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Shows reduced polarization in climate policy support in the U.S., suggesting moral perspective-taking can facilitate agreement.
Polarization is a barrier to the large-scale collective action urgently needed to address the climate crisis. Moral perspective-taking combines counter-attitudinal argument generation with moral framing as a strategy for reducing polarization. Across four online studies with participants in the United States, we experimentally tested the efficacy of moral perspective-taking for depolarization around divisive climate-related topics (transition from fossil fuels, fracking bans). We found consistent evidence that moral perspective-taking can help moderate views on a divisive environmental topic, thus helping to decrease polarization. All four studies found significant effects of moral perspective-taking on policy support. Further, Studies 1 and 2 found that the intervention increased cognitive empathy for people with opposing views and Studies 3 and 4 found it decreased resistance to opinion change and influenced willingness to take action on the issue. Our findings suggest that moral perspective-taking can be used as a flexible tool to reduce polarization that is scalable and adaptable across multiple contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hurst et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: