How To Conduct a Dialogue Despite The Difference in Viewpoints?

Note: This article is based on the blog of Michael Yeomansis, who tells us about his research on how to conduct a better dialogue.

The more important the relationship, the more likely the argument will intensify. Still, although disagreements are inevitable, there are ways to avoid escalating the problem and bring out the best in you and the other.

For decades, psychologists have been studying differences. Still, they have focused on structural variables-the contextual parameters that determine the perspective of a dialogue before it begins, such as initial beliefs about the subject and the personality of those who talk to it. These factors can impact on our differences, and these previous studies have shown ways to mitigate conflicts.

For example, if people's ideas are extreme, or if they consider the other party with whom they disagree selfishly, incompetently, or even substandard, this multiplies their differences. Psychologists have suggested that if we reduce people's beliefs, we can influence their reactions and thus reduce conflict. Other research has also examined people's choices about who they trust to talk to. Experts have suggested that by encouraging more excellent communication between pluralistic groups, people will emerge from their “shells” and get to know each other better.

In fact, these structural variables - to whom you speak and on whom you differ - seem to be linked in a way that makes productive conversation almost impossible. Still, the dominant structural perspective has most likely overlooked the importance of our decisions in discussions. This is important because in many of our relationships at home, work, and society, we don't have many choices about who we can talk to or what we disagree about.

Fortunately, our research found that even if the problem and the person you disagree with are consistent, we have choices in what we say. This can help maintain that relationship, increase persuasion, and teach us more about the other person's point of view.

Let's give some examples to show what I mean. These disagreements were written by participants in a study we conducted; they included discussions about controversial policies with someone who disagreed with them. We chose highly controversial issues to show that even the difference between being willing to talk and not being receptive to dialogue can be significant. Here, they were asked: “Were the reactions to recent confrontations between police and minority crime suspects overstated?”

In disagreements, explanatory language such as “because” and “so” suggest transcendence, and these assumptions about what is going on show a lack of intellectual humility. Here is a preliminary statement we asked participants to read written by someone who supported the protests and other public reactions:

“The public reaction was not exaggerated; it was severely suppressed. The recent confrontations easily highlight issues that have existed for far too long. There have been executions and killings of minorities throughout American history, but now, we have real-time proof through mobile phone videos and Facebook Live. There are real problems between the police and the communities they serve that are only addressed because of the attention directed through the Black Lives Matter movement and other protests.”

Now, before you continue reading, imagine how someone more skeptical of the protest movement could respond to this initial statement. If you disagree with this initial statement yourself, think about how you would respond.

We showed hundreds of people this initial statement, and others liked it and asked them to respond. Here are two contrasting responses written by two participants. We mentioned these responses not to give credence to their point of view but because they offer a valuable and surprising contrast in their style choice. Take a look to see if you can notice any significant differences in style:

• Reply 1: “I understand what you are saying; maybe there is some truth in the fact that these issues have been hidden for a long time; however, since I am from St Louis and witnessed the Ferguson riots, I can also see how things can be magnified and made worse in people's eyes, admitting that there are real problems, but maybe sometimes attention is drawn to the wrong places.”
• Reply 2: "Overreacting to police confrontations can generally be deadly for the public. When hostility towards the police escalates, as happened in Chicago, the police will not feel safe entering the closed neighborhoods; therefore, these people in those neighborhoods will have to defend themselves. If they call the police and ask for their help, the police will not be able to meet the call of those in need because they can be shot.”

The contrast between these two responses is essential for several reasons. First, they had the same position on the issue; that is, they were more skeptical of the protest movement than the person who made the initial statement. Second, they were both responding to the same text. In other words, some key structural variables in this controversy were identical.

However, you might notice that these two responses have adopted very different conversation styles. In fact, we recruited online participants to record such responses to their “acceptance of opposing opinions” based on a metric developed by my colleague Julia Minson and others. Their results for the two examples above reveal (they rated the first response) as one of the most plausible answers in the entire dataset. In contrast, they rated the second as the least likely, and you'll likely also agree that the first answer was a more productive approach, but why?

Looking closely, you will notice some basic features of constructive disagreement in the first answer.

First, let's pay attention to confession. People often look for signs that their conversation partner is listening and understanding. Making an effort to recognize the other person's point of view is an easy way to prove to another person that you are listening by saying things like “I understand” or “I see your point of view.”

You can also use a more receptive method based on hedging. If you want to express your opinion, you can mitigate it in a hedging style by adding "possible," "sometimes," or "perhaps" instead of speaking categorically. This will show your intellectual humility; this makes it easier for you to find common ground with the other person.

The third advantage is agreement. Humans have a lot in common, but it's hard to notice the things we agree on when we focus on disagreements. And during an argument, there's always something in common between you, and it's helpful to point that out clearly; the first response included the three dialogical features.

Why, on the other hand, does the second response lack the trait of receptivity? It's helpful to think about errors of omission (things we should say but don't say) and errors of inclusion (things we shouldn't have said but said). The second responder made both mistakes.

First, note the second respondent didn't use any of the acceptance features used by the first response. At the same time, it included unacceptable advantages; it used the method of denial, such as "will not" and " can not ", and all these words are enough to close the dialogue and seem contradictory. This person has also used explanatory language, such as “because” and “therefore.” In disagreements, this kind of assumption around the world can sound condescending, showing a lack of intellectual humility.

Conversations are complex; acceptance requires all those small choices accumulated over time, and almost every sentence in a conversation can be modified to become less or more acceptable.  Recently, we have developed a machine learning algorithm that can read these features of texts and assess the extent to which a text is receptive.

We found that the effects of receptivity apply to both parties discussing protests against police conduct and to people on both sides of other contentious issues as well. In fact, we've analyzed thousands of conversations from various contexts where people try to be productive in discussions.

One of our areas of research was distance learning, designed to help students from all walks of life learn from each other and share their multiple perspectives.

We then found that the more receptive students were, the more receptive they received from students with whom they disagreed. We saw another mechanism in another global distributor team (Wikipedia editors). These editors have various opinions, which is why they succeed as a collective project, but sometimes things can get out of hand.

We found that more receptive editors were less likely to be personally attacked than their fellow editors. Together, these results show that the immediate outcome of choosing to be receptive comes in the same way. Over time, responders create a safe environment for respectful disagreements and mutual understanding.

To help people who might want to learn to be more receptive, my colleagues and I developed the following “receptive recipe” based on our research. Think about how you can follow some of these guidelines the next time you find yourself in conflict:

• Actively acknowledging the other party's point of view by using terms such as "I understand that, “I see your point,” or “What I think you're saying is …. .”
• Confirm the other person's opinions by highlighting areas of agreement, whether small or noticeable. For example: Say, “I agree with…” Or, "You're right about … ."
• Use Hedging: Say, “I think it's possible” instead of “This will happen because…” (Note: You can soften your beliefs, but don't compromise on principles; avoid words like “only” or “easily”).
• Support your arguments with positive terms instead of negative ones. Say: “I think it's helpful to maintain social distance” instead of “You don't have to be social right now.”
• Sharing your personal experiences (especially those involving vulnerability) will encourage mutual respect, but mentioning the justifications or facts you've learned can seem controversial and condescending.

You may think that credibility requires making your differences boldly clear. But, in many ways, if you are an open-minded person willing to listen, a bold and frank reaction can be misleading and inauthentic - and it will fail to convey your true acceptance and humility.

People talk to others to be heard and often find it difficult to tell if others are listening. If you don't take the time to prove that you're listening with your own words, you'll leave room for misinterpretation by others, and your conversation can slide further into the spiral of conflict. In some ways, you can think of arguing as a temptation. Like eating sugary foods or staying up late, the excitement of talking about what's on your mind is instantaneous, but the long-term costs of a relationship aren't apparent.

You may also think it is not easy to be receptive in moments of emotion. This may be true initially, but like any skill, it gets easier with training. Our research shows that people who learn to accept before a difficult conversation end up being more receptive to their peers, more trustworthy, and more persuasive.

This may be helpful in your next argument. Always remember the words you choose in the conversation and whether you can find space to be more receptive, even if - and especially if - the stakes of disagreement are high.