Experimental Testing of Anticonformity to Depolarize Social System

When there are two extreme, conflicting options for how to deal with a problem, a collective can get stuck in a highly polarized state, unable to make a decision. This can happen even when there exist a middleground option that could potentially satisfy both parties. Interaction between factions with opposing beliefs about the best option can be helpful to reduce polarization, but encouraging interactions between opposing factions can be difficult in the real world. A recent computational model of belief dynamics suggests that anticonformity, defined as expressing a belief that is different than the majority view in a group, could be a promising alternative way to reduce polarization in a society. Here we test this model empirically to see if anticonformity of some members can indeed change group dynamics, and whether its effects differ from merely enabling between-faction interactions. In an online group experiment, human participants (N= 1,390) engaged in collective decision making regarding a dilemma about accepting a new family in their neighborhood. The dilemma had two extreme and one middle-ground solution, and was framed as either a nonpolitical or political issue. Within small groups of participants from same or different factions, they expressed their beliefs over 20 rounds about what would be the best solution to the dilemma. To induce anticonformity, some participants received a message encouraging them to think differently than the majority. We found that interacting with others expressing opposing beliefs reduced polarization but only through forming a consensus at one of the extreme solutions. In comparison, anticonformity intervention led to more participants endorsing the middle-ground solution, even when the dilemma was politically charged.