Apr 21, 2026 09:37 PM
https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/news-even...ou-oppose/
PRESS RELEASE: In a world that feels like it's growing more negative by the day it may be a surprise that talking about what we're against has its value, at least when it comes to engaging people who disagree with us.
Over a series of studies with nearly 6,000 people, researcher Rhia Catapano tested what happened when participants were presented with viewpoints they disagreed with and how open they were to them when those viewpoints were expressed in support terms instead of oppositional ones. Think of "I support abortion rights," versus "I'm against making abortion illegal."
Turns out, those two ways of expressing the same idea can land very differently with someone else. And we're really good at getting that wrong.
"It’s often difficult to meaningfully take the perspective of someone who we disagree with," explains Catapano, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. She conducted the research with Stanford University's Zakary L. Tormala.
"When people want to understand what will make others receptive, they think about what would make themselves receptive," says Prof. Catapano. "Unfortunately, people who disagree with us are frequently not receptive to the same things we are."
Study participants generally believed that other people with opposing viewpoints to their own would be more open when the viewpoint was expressed in a pro-support way. But that is not how they responded when the shoe was on the other foot.
Whether the topic was abortion, gun control or taxing the rich, participants reported being less open to a different viewpoint when it was presented using pro-support language. They also tended to believe the holder of that viewpoint was more certain and extreme in their position. Participants shown simulated Reddit posts with perspectives that did not match their own were more likely to keep reading if the post talked about what the poster was against instead of what they were for.
That was not the case though when two parties agreed on an issue. There, engagement was better when the argument was framed in a pro-support way.
The mechanism behind those nuanced dynamics, the researchers found, is our perception of how our values line up with someone else's. When someone uses pro-support language to express a perspective we disagree with, we tend to see them as more out of step with our own values than when they talk about what they're against.
Still, when it comes to the public square, "almost every cause identifies itself based on what it supports," says Prof. Catapano, which ultimately may alienate those the cause most wishes to engage.
And while her findings don't offer a panacea to the polarization we find ourselves in, she believes that they point to simple changes that may help, even in a world of division. "A person doesn’t need to change their mindset, or even the arguments that they’re making -- they just have to change the framing of their arguments," the researcher says. "The hope is that by using many small levers, we can improve dialogues little by little."
The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
PRESS RELEASE: In a world that feels like it's growing more negative by the day it may be a surprise that talking about what we're against has its value, at least when it comes to engaging people who disagree with us.
Over a series of studies with nearly 6,000 people, researcher Rhia Catapano tested what happened when participants were presented with viewpoints they disagreed with and how open they were to them when those viewpoints were expressed in support terms instead of oppositional ones. Think of "I support abortion rights," versus "I'm against making abortion illegal."
Turns out, those two ways of expressing the same idea can land very differently with someone else. And we're really good at getting that wrong.
"It’s often difficult to meaningfully take the perspective of someone who we disagree with," explains Catapano, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. She conducted the research with Stanford University's Zakary L. Tormala.
"When people want to understand what will make others receptive, they think about what would make themselves receptive," says Prof. Catapano. "Unfortunately, people who disagree with us are frequently not receptive to the same things we are."
Study participants generally believed that other people with opposing viewpoints to their own would be more open when the viewpoint was expressed in a pro-support way. But that is not how they responded when the shoe was on the other foot.
Whether the topic was abortion, gun control or taxing the rich, participants reported being less open to a different viewpoint when it was presented using pro-support language. They also tended to believe the holder of that viewpoint was more certain and extreme in their position. Participants shown simulated Reddit posts with perspectives that did not match their own were more likely to keep reading if the post talked about what the poster was against instead of what they were for.
That was not the case though when two parties agreed on an issue. There, engagement was better when the argument was framed in a pro-support way.
The mechanism behind those nuanced dynamics, the researchers found, is our perception of how our values line up with someone else's. When someone uses pro-support language to express a perspective we disagree with, we tend to see them as more out of step with our own values than when they talk about what they're against.
Still, when it comes to the public square, "almost every cause identifies itself based on what it supports," says Prof. Catapano, which ultimately may alienate those the cause most wishes to engage.
And while her findings don't offer a panacea to the polarization we find ourselves in, she believes that they point to simple changes that may help, even in a world of division. "A person doesn’t need to change their mindset, or even the arguments that they’re making -- they just have to change the framing of their arguments," the researcher says. "The hope is that by using many small levers, we can improve dialogues little by little."
The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.