Study may offer explanation for why people get into such furious rows on Twitter

Survey finds people are more likely to agree with an argument if they hear it rather than read it

People are more likely to humanise their opponent if they listen directly to them rather than having a text-based debate on social media
People are more likely to humanise their opponent if they listen directly to them rather than having a text-based debate on social media

If you are wondering why your friends and family just don’t understand where you are coming from with your reasoned political argument on Facebook, it may be worth asking them to listen – literally.

A new study has suggested the key to winning people over to your side of the argument may be verbal rather than written.

In a paper published in the journal Psychological Science, scientists at University of California, Berkeley and the University of Chicago found people who had verbal debates about various political issues were more likely to be persuaded by their opponents argument than those who simply read them.

For the survey 300 people were asked to watch, listen or read arguments about war, abortion and different genres of music then were asked to judge how well the person communicated the argument.

The scientists said they found those who disagreed with the argument tended to “dehumanise” the communicator and regarded “having a diminished capacity to either think or feel” but this happened far less frequently when you hear their voice or see them speak.

Juliana Schroeder from Berkeley said this is because communicating through voice makes the person speaking seem more reasonable and human.

She told The Washington Post: “One of us read a speech excerpt that was printed in a newspaper from a politician with whom he strongly disagreed.

“The next week, he heard the exact same speech clip playing on a radio station. He was shocked by how different his reaction was toward the politician when he read the excerpt compared to when he heard it. When he read the statement, the politician seemed idiotic, but when he heard it spoken, the politician actually sounded reasonable.”

In the report, the authors said: “When two people hold different beliefs, there is a tendency not only to recognise a difference of opinion but also to denigrate the mind of one’s opposition.

“Because another person’s mind cannot be experienced directly, its quality must be inferred from indirect cues.”

Dr Schroeder said she hopes the study might help explain why social media has had such a polarising effect on political debate in recent years.

She said: “Many people receive the majority of their news from social media​ now. This can be dehumanising, and may increase polarisation. It’s easy to imagine how this could become cyclical; dehumanisation leading to more polarisation leading to more dehumanisation.”

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in