The next speaker in this session at the ECREA 2026 conference in Brno is Quirin Ryffel, whose interest is in the impact of argument exposure on polarisation. Affective polarisation between two opinion groups based on issue-specific positions is in part driven by a horizontal dislike between those groups; individuals in one group perceive other groups to be different from them, and this can generate out-group animosity as well as increase in-group favouritism.
Wheat happens when these groups encounter each other’s arguments, then? Intercrop contact theory suggests that groups might lead to a recognition of commonalities and a reduction of fear of the other; however, frequent or aggressive exposure to counter-attitudinal views might have an opposite effect. How individuals evaluate the arguments they encounter will also depend on existing attitudes: pro-attitudinal arguments will be easier to accept than counter-attitudinal arguments, for instance.
This study conducted national panel surveys in the US, Spain, and Germany in 2024, testing respondents’ views on stricter climate action measures; these were used to classify respondents as opponents, supporters, or ambivalent about climate action. It then explored these respondents’ exposure to a range of typical pro- and anti-climate action arguments, and asked them to rate how convincing they found those arguments, as well as assess their own attitudes towards people who hold such views.
More pro-attitudinal exposure resulted in more affective polarisation; more counter-attitudinal exposure reduced affective polarisation. This was further enhanced if they rated pro-attitudinal arguments as stronger, and counter-attitudinal arguments as weaker, while the perception of pro-attitudinal arguments as weak or counter-attitudinal arguments as strong reduced polarisation – and indeed it is the strength of arguments rather than the repeated exposure that is the most significant factor here. Such patterns are consistent across all three countries. However, supporters of climate action show substantially weaker effects than opponents; this means that opponents of climate action can be depolarised using strong arguments.
