(Image by Lightspring on Shutterstock)
Researchers find unexpected cure for political polarization in couples therapy techniques
In a nutshell
- Researchers found that techniques from marriage counseling, when applied to political divisions, helped reduce hostility between Democrats and Republicans through structured workshops that encouraged understanding rather than debate.
- College students who participated in these “political couples therapy” sessions showed measurable decreases in negative feelings toward the opposing party, with some positive effects still visible six months later, particularly in their willingness to financially support depolarization efforts.
- The study’s success suggests that reducing political polarization may require less focus on policy debates and more emphasis on helping people understand the experiences and values that shape different political viewpoints.
NOTRE DAME, Ind. — In an era of deepening political division, researchers have found an unexpected source of inspiration for bringing Americans together: marriage counseling. A study suggests that techniques borrowed from couples therapy could help reduce the intense animosity between Democrats and Republicans, offering a glimmer of hope for our politically fractured nation.
“Polarization threatens democracy, and finding ways to reduce it is vital,” explains Laura Gamboa, assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at the University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs, in a statement. “With depolarizing efforts multiplying across the U.S., understanding not just if they work, but how and why, is more important than ever.”
Much like quarreling spouses who can’t simply walk away from their shared household, Americans of different political stripes must find ways to coexist within the same democracy. This reality prompted researchers from eight universities to evaluate an innovative approach developed by Braver Angels, a non-partisan organization that applies relationship counseling principles to political reconciliation. Their paper is published in the journal Political Behavior.
Political polarization poses a serious threat to democratic functioning. Research has shown it undermines democracy by driving citizens to prioritize partisan preferences over democratic principles, encourages legislative gridlock, and threatens democratic attitudes and norms, such as tolerance for opposition. Today, Americans increasingly view those on the other side as untrustworthy, unpatriotic, and misinformed.
Inside the workshops: Real conversations across the divide
The workshops revealed how structured dialogue could challenge participants’ assumptions about both their own party and their political opponents. During the “Stereotypes Exercise,” participants had frank discussions about common misconceptions. Rather than becoming defensive, they often acknowledged partial truths while pushing back against oversimplification. For example, when discussing accusations of racism within the Republican party, two participants demonstrated this nuanced approach:
“Guaranteed there is a subset that are completely racist. Because I’ve heard it myself. But I feel that’s false for the vast majority…” one Republican student named Jed observed. His fellow Republican, Pauline, added an important insight: “The loudest people don’t represent the majority of the people.”
The workshops also helped participants recognize diversity within their own political groups. One Democratic student named Abby challenged the assumption that party membership requires complete ideological alignment: “So I am a pro-life Democrat… The thing that comes up with that, it sort of assumes you have to agree with every single thing about your party. And I think that is completely unrealistic. And if anything it limits American democracy by not allowing people to be within a party and not believe totally [in everything it stands for].”
These conversations appeared to foster genuine self-reflection among participants. After observing discussions during the “Fishbowl Exercise,” where one group listened while the other shared their perspectives, a Democratic student named Ray noted, “I also found there to be, you know, lots of really good introspection on both sides. And I felt really validated by a lot of the self-reflection points during the Fishbowl especially.”
The impact of this structured dialogue became evident as participants began questioning their own assumptions. Another Democratic student, Yvonne, remarked, “I definitively was surprised by the amount of self-reflection and political criticism… It made me actually self-reflect and realize that maybe I should be more critical of my party.”
Understanding political division
The researchers distinguished between two types of political division. Ideological polarization refers to actual disagreements about policies and issues. Affective polarization, which this study focused on, describes the emotional hostility people feel toward members of the opposing party. This emotional divide has grown dramatically in recent decades, with Americans increasingly viewing political opponents as threatening and morally wrong rather than simply mistaken.
To track whether the workshops actually reduced this emotional hostility, researchers used three different types of measurements. First, they directly asked participants about their feelings toward the opposing party through surveys. Second, they used a specialized computer test that measured how quickly people associated positive or negative words with each party, revealing unconscious biases. Finally, they gave participants a real chance to put money toward depolarization efforts, offering concrete evidence of changing attitudes.
College students proved ideal participants for several reasons. Today’s college students represent the most politically polarized incoming freshman class in 50 years. Having come of age in an era of social media echo chambers and heightened political tension, they offer important insights into how polarization might be addressed among younger generations who will shape the future of American democracy.
Positive (and lasting) changes in politics are possible
The workshops produced significant immediate effects. Participants showed less hostility toward the opposing party in both their conscious and unconscious responses. They were also more willing to donate money to organizations working to reduce political division among young Americans.
While some of these attitudinal changes faded over the six-month study period, the behavioral changes proved more durable. Participants remained more likely to support depolarization efforts financially even half a year after the workshop, suggesting the experience created lasting changes in how they engaged with political differences.
The workshops also differed from standard political discussions by having participants mainly interact with their own political group while the other side listened. This structured approach helped prevent defensive reactions and allowed for more honest exploration of political views.
“Unlike similar interventions, these workshops combine strategies proven to reduce political divisions, like sharing information about the beliefs and policies of people from the other side with activities designed to build empathy and understanding, based on ideas from social psychology,” Gamboa said.
While marriage counseling can’t solve all of America’s political problems, this research indicates its techniques might help address a crucial challenge: getting citizens to see past partisan labels to recognize their shared stake in democracy’s success. The next step is expanding these approaches beyond college campuses to reach more Americans caught in the cycle of political polarization.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The study employed a randomized controlled trial design across four college campuses. From a pool of 165 participants (116 Democrats and 49 Republicans), some students were randomly assigned to participate in day-long workshops while others served as a control group. Researchers measured attitudes using three main tools: explicit surveys about political feelings, implicit association tests to measure unconscious biases, and real-world behavioral measures involving optional donations to depolarization initiatives.
Results
Workshop participants showed significant reductions in political hostility compared to the control group. These improvements were evident in both conscious and unconscious measures of partisan animosity. While some attitudinal changes faded over time, behavioral changes – particularly willingness to financially support depolarization efforts – remained strong even after six months.
Limitations
The study focused exclusively on college students, which raises questions about whether similar results would occur in other age groups or demographics. The sample size was relatively modest at 165 participants (116 Democrats and 49 Republicans), which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, recruitment challenges led to an imbalance, with more liberal-leaning students participating than conservative-leaning students, a trend observed in similar studies. While participant attrition occurred over the study period, the analysis did not indicate that dropout rates significantly skewed the results. Future research would be needed to confirm whether the same effects hold across different political and demographic groups.
Discussion and Takeaways
The study demonstrates that structured interventions combining emotional and informational approaches can effectively reduce political hostility. The persistence of behavioral changes, even as some attitudinal shifts faded, suggests that this approach might create lasting impacts on how people engage across political divides.
Funding and Disclosures
The study was supported by grants from the Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs at Texas A&M University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service, the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability (IDEA) at Ohio State University, the Swearer Center and Department of Political Science at Brown University, and the Department of Political Science at University of Pittsburgh.
Publication Information
The study, titled “Couples Therapy for a Divided America: Assessing the Effects of Reciprocal Group Reflection on Partisan Polarization,” was published in Political Behavior in January 2025. The research team included scholars from Tulane University, Brown University, University of Notre Dame, University of Houston, Ohio State University, Boston University, University of Georgia, and University of Pittsburgh.
