Mitigating Perceived Polarization by Acknowledging Subjectivity: An Experimental Study of the Impact of Differently Phrasing Comments in Online News Discussions

Many people perceive society as more polarized than it actually is. Arguably, one prominent reason for this false polarization is the apparent hardening of online debates, raising the question whether something can be done to make online discussions more constructive. The current paper tests the effectiveness of subjective phrasing (e.g., “I think”) in reducing perceived polarization and stimulating constructive discussion online. We ask participants (N = 175; repeated-measures) to read and evaluate subjectively and non-subjectively phrased online news discussions about societally polarized and non-polarized topics. In line with our hypotheses, we find that participants perceive discussions with subjectively phrased comments as less polarized and think discussants are less disinhibited, feel more heard and experience more solidarity. Results additionally show that participants are more willing to join such a constructive discussion themselves and tend to copy the prevalent phrasing in formulating their own reaction. Auxiliary analyses show, however, that topic polarization qualifies some of these findings, which indicates interesting links between macro-societal perceptions and micro-level discussion dynamics. This study has implications for realizing deliberative democracy online: adding a simple “I think” might help counter polarization.