How Talking About What You Oppose Can Make Political Conversations More Open and Productive
Political discussions have a reputation for going nowhere fast. People dig into their positions, conversations turn tense, and genuine listening often disappears. But new research published by the American Psychological Association suggests that a surprisingly small change in how we talk about our views can make a real difference. Instead of emphasizing what we support, framing our opinions around what we oppose may make others more open to listening, even when they fundamentally disagree with us.
This insight comes from a large body of research led by Rhia Catapano, a psychologist at the University of Toronto, and her colleagues. Their work explores how subtle shifts in language affect openness, receptiveness, and willingness to engage across political divides. At a time when polarization continues to deepen, the findings offer a practical and counterintuitive approach to communicating about controversial issues.
What the Research Looked At
The research examined a simple but powerful question: does it matter whether people frame their political views in terms of what they support versus what they oppose? To find out, the researchers conducted a series of experiments involving more than 10,000 participants. These studies focused on divisive political topics, including abortion and gun control, which reliably evoke strong and opposing opinions.
Participants were assigned different roles across the experiments. Some were asked to communicate their views, while others were asked to respond to opinions supposedly expressed by someone who disagreed with them. Importantly, participants were told they were interacting with someone who held opposing views, even though in reality they were not matched with a real person. This design allowed the researchers to carefully control how opinions were presented and measured.
The key manipulation was how the political position was framed. In one condition, a message focused on support, such as supporting abortion access. In another condition, the same underlying position was framed as opposition, such as opposing abortion bans. The arguments themselves did not change. In some cases, participants read full three-paragraph essays containing identical reasoning and evidence. The only difference was the wording of the opening sentence.
What People Expect Versus What Actually Happens
One of the most interesting findings from the research was the mismatch between expectations and reality. Participants who were assigned to send messages believed that framing their views around support would be more persuasive and effective. They assumed that clearly stating what they stand for would resonate better with someone who disagrees.
However, the people on the receiving end responded very differently. Receivers consistently showed greater openness to messages framed around opposition. They were more likely to feel that the message aligned with their values, even when they did not agree with the conclusion. They were also more willing to reconsider their own views after reading opposition-framed messages.
This pattern held across multiple experiments, suggesting that the effect is not a fluke or limited to one specific setup.
Why Opposition Framing Feels Less Threatening
The researchers suggest that this effect has to do with perceived value conflict. When someone says what they support, especially on a political issue, it strongly signals their personal values and identity. For someone who disagrees, this can feel like a direct clash of worldviews, making them defensive before they even engage with the argument.
By contrast, framing an opinion in terms of what one opposes can feel less confrontational. It shifts attention away from personal identity and toward a shared rejection of a particular outcome or policy. Even people on opposite sides of an issue may find some overlap in what they want to avoid, which lowers resistance and makes engagement easier.
What makes this especially striking is how small the change is. The researchers found that altering just one word in the opening sentence—from support to oppose—was enough to change how receptive people felt to everything that followed. The arguments themselves did not need to be softened or rewritten.
Evidence From a Simulated Social Media Environment
To test whether these effects extend beyond direct message evaluation, the researchers also conducted an experiment using a simulated Reddit-style platform. Participants were given a choice of posts to read and engage with, mimicking how people browse political content online.
Once again, opposition-framed posts attracted more attention. Participants were more likely to select and engage with messages that emphasized opposition rather than support. This suggests that the effect is not limited to passive reading but also influences what people actively choose to engage with in online spaces.
Given how much political discussion now takes place on social media, this finding adds an important real-world dimension to the research.
Why This Matters in a Polarized Political Climate
Political polarization has become a defining feature of modern public life. Many people avoid political conversations altogether because they expect them to be hostile or unproductive. This research suggests that small linguistic adjustments can reduce friction and make dialogue more possible.
The findings do not claim that opposition framing will suddenly make people agree with each other. Instead, they show that it can increase openness, which is a necessary first step for any meaningful exchange of ideas. When people feel less threatened, they are more likely to listen, reflect, and at least understand where the other side is coming from.
The research also highlights how much language matters in persuasion. Often, debates focus on evidence, facts, and arguments, but overlook the psychological impact of framing. This work shows that how an argument is introduced can shape how it is received, even before the details are considered.
Connections to Broader Psychological Research
These findings align with existing research on psychological reactance, which describes how people resist messages they perceive as threatening their freedom or identity. Support-framed messages may unintentionally trigger reactance by emphasizing personal values that clash with those of the listener. Opposition framing appears to reduce this effect.
The results also connect to the concept of negative partisanship, where political identities are shaped more by opposition to the other side than by positive attachment to one’s own side. In this context, framing messages around opposition may feel more familiar and less alienating.
Limitations and Future Directions
Like all research, this work has limitations. Most participants were recruited online, and the studies focused on Western political contexts. The effects may vary in face-to-face conversations or in different cultural settings. Additionally, the research focused on highly polarized, binary issues, and it remains to be seen how opposition framing works for more complex policy debates.
Still, the consistency of the findings across multiple experiments and formats suggests that the effect is robust and worthy of further exploration.
A Small Change With Big Implications
What stands out most from this research is how minor adjustments in wording can have outsized effects. Simply shifting from talking about what you support to what you oppose can make others more willing to listen, even when disagreement remains.
In an era where political conversations often feel stuck, this insight offers a practical, evidence-based tool for anyone who wants to communicate more effectively across ideological lines. It does not require changing beliefs or compromising values, only rethinking how those beliefs are expressed.
Research paper:
Talking About What We Support Versus Oppose Affects Others’ Openness to Our Views – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2025)
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspa0000473.pdf
