A recent study published in Political Psychology suggests that a brief psychological intervention can reduce hostile attitudes between opposing political groups. By exposing people to surprising facts that challenge their political stereotypes, scientists found that individuals on both the political left and right became more open-minded toward their rivals. The findings provide evidence that simple exercises in rethinking our own certainty might help ease rising political tensions.
In many democratic societies around the world, political polarization and intolerance have escalated. This growing divide is often accompanied by acts of violence and hostility directed at individuals based on their political affiliations. Opposing groups tend to dehumanize each other, viewing their rivals as severe threats to democracy itself.
In Germany, this hostility is particularly intense between two major political factions. Members of the left-leaning Green Party and the right-wing Alternative for Germany party are the most frequent targets of politically motivated hostility and violence. The Alternative for Germany party advocates for strict immigration policies and is monitored by some intelligence agencies as a suspected extremist group.
The Green Party focuses on environmental protection and social liberalism, placing it squarely on the other end of the political spectrum. The researchers wanted to explore ways to reduce this specific brand of mutual hatred. They had previously used a technique called metacognitive training to ease tensions between different religious groups and between opposing political parties in the United States.
Metacognitive training is an approach originally developed to help treat mental health conditions by planting seeds of doubt in overly rigid or false beliefs. The scientists wanted to see if adapting this method could also soften extreme political hostilities in Germany.
“We had previously conducted studies on rising tensions between different religious affiliations as well as between Democrats and Republicans, and we were able to reduce hostility in those contexts using the same methods,” said co-author Steffen Moritz, the head of the Neuropsychology and Psychotherapy Research Unit at University Medical Center Hamburg.
“This study was therefore a natural next step for an emerging societal problem in Germany: propensity for violence,” added co-author Klaus Michael Reininger, a professor of psychotherapy research at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.
For the new study, the researchers recruited 1,025 adult German citizens for an online study. The sample included a diverse range of ages and education levels. About 69 percent of the participants identified as left-wing voters, while 13 percent identified as right-wing voters. The scientists first measured the participants’ baseline political views before introducing any new information.
Participants completed a survey assessing their level of political hostility toward the Green Party and the Alternative for Germany party. They answered questions on a four-point scale about their lack of compassion for political opponents and their endorsement of violence against rival party members. The participants also rated how democratic or authoritarian they considered each political party to be.
Next, the participants completed the metacognitive training intervention. The researchers presented them with twelve seemingly simple questions designed to trigger common stereotypes about the opposing political faction. For instance, questions were crafted to make left-wing voters assume the worst about right-wing politicians, and vice versa.
After answering each question, participants had to rate how confident they were in their answer on a scale ranging from guessing to being completely sure. Then, the survey revealed the correct answers. These correct answers provided factual information that directly contradicted the common stereotypes the participants had just relied on.
This process of realizing one is highly confident but factually wrong is meant to induce a sense of doubt and surprise. After seeing the correct answers, the participants took the political hostility survey a second time. The researchers then compared the before and after scores to look for measurable changes in attitude.
The findings suggest that this brief intervention successfully reduced hostility between the two political camps. Left-wing voters showed an improved attitude toward the right-wing party. In the exact same way, right-wing voters showed less hostility toward the left-wing party.
“I would have expected less change toward the right-wing party AfD than toward the Green Party, as the former is ostracized in Germany by some as a Nazi party,” Moritz told PsyPost. “In Germany, the word ‘Nazi’ effectively ends any discussion and, with it, openness to change and rethink political positions. We therefore debated for a long time whether to do this at all.”
In addition to reducing general hostility, the intervention changed how participants viewed the opposing party’s commitment to democracy. Both left-wing and right-wing voters rated their political rivals as more democratic after completing the training. This effect was especially noticeable among right-wing voters, who significantly improved their democratic appraisal of the Green Party.
The scientists noted that the intervention was most effective for a very specific group of people. Participants who answered incorrectly but reported the highest level of confidence in their wrong answers showed the greatest improvement in their attitudes. This suggests that the experience of being completely certain but demonstrably wrong helps unfreeze rigid political beliefs.
“It is possible to communicate outside one’s own bubble and attenuate even hostile attitudes using a very simple technique that involves humor and surprise,” Moritz said. “Importantly, one should not try to educate only one side; bridges can only be built addressing both sides.”
While the findings provide evidence for optimism, the researchers highlighted a potential misinterpretation to avoid. They noted that while this training was adapted from a clinical psychiatric treatment, political extremism is not a mental disorder.
“Delusions and political extremism share an important feature—overconfidence—but the latter should not be mistaken for a mental disorder,” Moritz explained. “In this study, we used MCT off-label, so to speak.”
The study also has a few limitations that provide direction for future research. The experiment did not include a control group of participants who took the survey without receiving the intervention. Without a control group, it is difficult to completely rule out the possibility that attitudes naturally drifted toward the middle during the survey process.
The sample was also somewhat unbalanced, featuring far more left-leaning voters than right-leaning voters. The researchers suggest that future studies should track changes over a longer period to see how long the peaceful effects might last. They also recommend measuring actual behaviors, such as voting or donating to political causes, rather than relying strictly on self-reported feelings.
Finally, the scientists raised an ethical consideration for future applications of this work. Reducing hostility is generally positive, but researchers must ensure that interventions do not inadvertently evoke sympathy for groups that actually engage in unlawful or violent acts. Ultimately, the scientists hope to test this intervention in real world settings.
“We need follow-up studies and more real-life adaptations, for example, in schools,” Moritz said. “We have to get out of the ivory tower with this.”
“We don’t know with regard to our political/societal applications, but we will test this soon,” Reininger said.
The study, “Bridging the divide: Using metacognitive training to reduce hostility between the political left and right,” was authored by Steffen Moritz, Lisa Borgmann, Tanja M. Fritz, Anja S. Göritz, and Klaus Michael Reininger.
